Full text of "Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 - April, 1949"

See other formats

FULL TEXT SEARCHING OF THE FINAL REPORT AND THE 42
VOLUME INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL SET (GREY BOOKS)
AND THE 11 VOLUME NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION SET
(RED BOOKS) AND THE 16 VOLUME NUREMBERG MILITARY
TRIBUNAL SET (GREEN BOOKS) IS AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM IN
THE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT: ’’NUREMBERG WAR
CRIMES TRIAL ONLINE”, JX5437 .N8/1995x.

FORE THE

NUERNBERt

HE MEDICAL CAS

MILCH CASE

rET

"Eh

A' •">•

Given By

S« ouperii t^nvcnt or oc;t ?~ « 1*1 s

A, t

* t

TRIALS

WAR CRIMINALS

BEFORE THE

NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS

UNDER

CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10

VOLUME II

NUERNBERG

OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, HjQr y -Price 22.75 CBuckram

<gOSTQ^

PUBLIC

*J)gQ¥

. ¥2 T(s

v'p/t

CONTENTS

The Medical Case

(Introductory material and basic directives under which trials were conducted together
with Chapters I-VIII-E of Medical Case are printed in Volume I.)

Page

VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case

(cont'd) 1

F. Necessity 1

G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for

Penalties 44

H. Usefulness of the Experiments 61

I. Medical Ethics 70

1. General Principles 70

2. German Medical Profession 86

3. Medical Experiments in other Countries 90

IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment 122

X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius 123

XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 138

XII. Judgment 171

The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 172

The Charge 173

Count One 173

Count Two and Three 174

Count Four 180

The Proof as to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. . 181

Permissible Medical Experiments 181

The Medical Service in Germany 184

The Ahnenerbe Society 188

Karl Brandt 189

Handloser 198

Rostock 208

Schroeder 210

Genzken 217

Gebhardt 223

Blome 228

Rudolf Brandt 235

Mrugowsky 241

Page

Poppendick 248

Sievers 253

Rose 264

Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz 272

Brack 277

Becker-Freyseng 281

Schaefer 285

Hoven 286

Beiglboeck 290

Pokorny 292

Oberheuser 294

Fischer 296

Sentences 298

XIII. Petitions 301

XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Military Governor of the United

States Zone of Occupation 327

XV. Order of the United States Supreme Court Denying Writ of

Habeas Corpus 330

Appendix 331

Table of Comparative Ranks 331

List of Witnesses in Case 1 332

Index of Documents and Testimony 336

The Milch Case

Introduction 355

Order Constituting Tribunal 357

Members of Military Tribunal II 359

Prosecution Counsel 359

Defense Counsel 359

I. Indictment 360

II. Arraignment 365

III. Opening Statements 366

A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution 366

B. Opening Statement for the Defense 377

IV. Selections from the Documents and Testimony of Witnesses

of Prosecution and Defense 385

A. Slave Labor 385

1. General Slave Labor Program in Germany 385

2. The Central Planning Board 444

3. The Jaegerstab 524

4. Generalluftzeugmeister 596

Page

B. Medical Experiments 623

C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony of

the Defendant Milch 633

V. Closing Statements 690

A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution 690

B. Closing Statement of the Defense 730

VI. Final Statement of the Defendant, 25 March 1947 772

VII. Judgment 773

A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tri-

bunal II 773

B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno.... 797

C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips 860

VIII. Petitions 879

A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military Governor

of United States Zone of Occupation 879

B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for

Writ of Habeas Corpus 883

IX. Affirmation of Sentence by the Military Governor of the United

States Zone of Occupation 887

X. Order of the United States Supreme Court, 20 October 1947,

Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 888

Appendix 889

List of Witnesses in Case 2 889

Index of Documents and Testimony , 891

VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE — Continued

F. Necessity

a. Introduction

The defense generally argued that the medical experiments took
place because of military necessity or the national emergency pre-
sented by war. The defendant Sievers argued that his participa-
tion in various experiments was a necessary part of his participa-
tion in a resistance movement in Germany. The defendant Hoven
argued that the concentration camp inmates, who were killed
by him or with his approval and knowledge, were selected by
the camp leadership which had been formed by the political in-
mates themselves. Hoven also argued that the inmates killed were
all dangerous criminals who collaborated voluntarily with the SS,
and if they would not have been removed, the political inmates
would have been exterminated by these criminals and by the
SS. He concluded that it was therefore necessary, in order to
prevent greater harm, either to kill these “stool pigeons” person-
ally or to give his approval for their extermination.

On the argument of military necessity and national emergency,
extracts from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt are in-
cluded on pages 5 to 12. On the general question of necessity,
extracts are included from the examination of the defendant
Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring on pages 29 to 30, and from the
cross-examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Andrew
C. Ivy on pages 42 to 44. The prosecution discussed the general
question of necessity in its opening statement.

The argument of the defendant Sievers that his participation
was necessary in connection with resistance to the Nazi leader-
ship appears in his final plea, an extract from which is given
on pages 13 to 25. From the evidence supporting the claim of
Sievers, extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr.
Friedrich Hielscher are included on pages 30 to 41. The prose-
cution’s reply to Sievers’ special defense was made, in part,
in the prosecution’s closing statement, an extract of which
appears on pages 4 to 5. The argument of the defendant Hoven
that the killing of concentration camp inmates, of which he was
accused, was justifiable homicide appears in his final plea, an
extract of which is set forth on pages 25 to 28. The prose-
cution’s reply to this special defense is set forth in the closing
brief against the defendant Hoven, an extract of which will be
found on pages 2 to 4.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST

DEFENDANT HOVEN

*******

(Hoven) tried to justify the killings [of concentration camp
inmates] by stating that these inmates were informers, spies,
and stool pigeons of the SS and therefore had to be exterminated.
He said that if they had been permitted to carry on with their
activities, the illegal camp management would have been wiped
out and the criminal inmates in the camp would have gained
the upper hand. Hoven’s attempt at justification for the killing
of inmates of concentration camps is, of course, no defense. It
may well be true that Hoven sympathized and even collaborated
with the illegal camp management. It may also be true that some
of his victims may have been killed by him on the basis of sug-
gestions put forward by this illegal camp management. But it
goes without saying that these political prisoners, who instigated
the murder of their opponents, were in no position to judge
whether it was really necessary to kill them for the sake of the
camp community. They only judged this emergency from their
own point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the benefit of
themselves. Hoven himself had no judgment at all in this respect
and simply made himself the willing and bought tool of a small
clique in the camp, who undoubtedly often tried to eliminate not
only persons whose activities were considered detrimental to the
well-being of their fellow inmates, but also personal opponents
and enemies. That Hoven was corrupted by the inmates and paid
for his murders is proved by the testimony of several witnesses.

Kogon testified:

‘‘I can only conclude that both motives, the political motive
and the motive of corruption, were active in the case of Dr.
Hoven. If Dr. Hoven expressed any desire — and he expressed
many desires — then these wishes were always filled .” ( Tr . p.
1213 .)

“He himself expressed many wishes constantly and all pos-
sible advantages were given him by such people whom he had
saved.” ( Tr . p. 121 If.)

Kirchheimer testified to the same effect. ( Tr . p. 131*6.) The
defense witness Pieck painted pictures for Hoven and his family,
and the defense witness Horn in his affidavit stated that Hoven
was very corrupt. The prisoners knew it and they corrupted him

in every possible manner and made him gifts of furniture, under-
wear, and food. There were periods in which complete workshops
were erected for Hoven in which thirty or more inmates were
working.

Pieter Schalker testified before the Dutch Bureau for the In-
vestigation of War Crimes in Amsterdam that Hoven played an
exceptionally evil role and had innumerable deaths on his con-
science owing to completely inadequate medical attention. In
later years, when it became obvious that Germany would be de-
feated, he changed his attitude towards the inmates. ( NO-1063 ,
Pros. Ex. 328.) When Schalker was interrogated by the commis-
sioner of the Tribunal on the motion of defense counsel, he
amplified his statement by saying that Hoven stole the food
which was furnished for the experimental subjects in Block 46
and also obtained other items such as shoes, toys, and women’s
clothing.

The testimony of the affiant Ackermann, who was an inmate
in the pathological department under Hoven, proves that Hoven
participated in the customary brutal crimes in concentration
camps. He said —

“Dr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of
the pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known
to me, who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr.
Hoven said to me: T want to see the skull of this prisoner on
my writing desk by tomorrow evening.’ The prisoner was
ordered to report to the medical section, after the physician
had noted down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was
delivered on the same day to the dissection room. The post-
mortem examination showed that the prisoner had been killed
by injections. The skull was prepared as ordered and delivered
to Dr. Hoven.” ( NO-2631, Pros. Ex. 522.)

Hoven also approved the beating of concentration camp in-
mates. ( NO-2313, Pros. Ex. 523; NO-2312, Pros. Ex. 52U>) One
of these inmates died.

On 20 August 1942, Hoven suggested to the camp commander
of Buchenwald that the reporting of deaths of Russian political
prisoners be discontinued in order to save paper. He said —

“It is requested that the question should be examined whether
it is necessary to issue reports of the death of political Russians.
According to a direction issued last week, an issue of only
one form was required. This may effect a saving of paper,
but as political Russians are for the greatest number among
the dead prisoners at the present time, more time and paper

could be saved if these death reports were dropped. Notifica-
tions of death could be made as before, as for the Russian
prisoners of war.” ( NO-2148, Pros. Ex. 570.)

The proof has shown that beside the sixty inmates who were
admittedly killed by him, Hoven participated in the killing of
many other inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp who
suffered from malnutrition and exhaustion. He selected the vic-
tims for the transports who were later killed in the Bernburg
Euthanasia Station. His defense that all his activities were done
only for the benefit of the political inmates in the concentration
camp is clearly ridiculous and without foundation.

It is interesting to note that Hoven’s defense that he killed
for idealistic motives is the same he used in the proceedings
against him in 1944, only then his alleged idealistic motive was
‘‘to prevent a scandal in the interest of the SS and the Wehr-
macht.” (NO-2380, Pros. Ex. 527 ; see also, NO-2366, Pros. Ex.
526.)

*******

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE

PROSECUTION *

*******

In Sievers we have an unresisting member of a so-called re-
sistance movement. He asks the Tribunal to free him from guilt
for his bloody crimes on the ground that he was really working
as an anti-Nazi resistance agent. Nor was he a latecomer to
the resistance movement; according to him, he has been re-
sisting since 1933. Yet in those 14 years, yes to this very day,
he has not performed one overt act against the men who ran
the system he now professes to have always detested. He joined
the Nazi Party as early as 1929 and the SS in 1935. He stayed
with Himmler’s gang until the last days of the collapse. He came
to Nuernberg in 1946, not to give evidence of the horrible crimes
of which he had first-hand knowledge, but to testify in defense
of the SS. During his testimony before the International Mili-
tary Tribunal, he consistently denied any knowledge of, or con-
nection with, crimes committed by the Ahnenerbe of the SS.
It was left to the cross-examination of Mr. Elwyn Jones to prove
him the murderer and perjurer that he is. Nor did he show any
signs of resistance in this trial except to the manifold crimes

• Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 1947, pp. 10718-
10786.

with which he is charged. Not one new fact did he reveal to this
Tribunal, although specifically asked to tell all he knew. If asked
today, he will assure one and all that there is not a guilty man in
the dock, and least of all himself. But, for purposes of argument,
let us concede the truth of his many lies. It does not harm our
case. It is not the law that a resistance worker can commit no
crime and, least of all, against the people he is supposed to be
protecting. It is not the law that an undercover agent, even an
FBI agent, can join a gang of murderers, lay the plans with
them, execute the killings, share the loot, and go his merry way.
Many are the policemen who have been convicted for taking part
in crimes they were entrusted to prevent. No, the sad thing is
that this collector of living Jews for transformation into skele-
tons has only one life with which to pay for his many crimes.

* * * * * * *

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT

GEBHARDT *

****** *

The State Emergency and War Emergency as Legal Excuse

The evidence proved furthermore that the experiments to test
the effectiveness of sulfanilamide were necessary to clarify a
question which was not only of decisive importance for the in-
dividual soldier and the troops at the front but above and beyond
this care for the individual, it was of vital importance for the
fighting power of the army, and thus for the whole fighting
nation. All efforts to clarify this question by studying the effect
of casual wounds failed. Although drugs of the sulfanilamide
series — the number of which amounts to approximately 3,000 —
had been tested for more than 10 years, it was impossible to form
an even approximately correct idea of the most valuable rem-
edies. It was impossible to clarify this question in peacetime by
the observation of many thousands of people with casual wounds
and by circularized inquiries. Nor could a clear answer be found
to this question of vital importance to many hundreds of thou-
sands of soldiers by observation of the wounded in field hospitals
during the war. In this argumentation it is impossible and also
unnecessary to examine details of the problem of wound infec-
tion and its control in modern warfare. I may assume that the
importance of this question is known to the Tribunal and needs

* Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp. 10874-10911.

no further proof since this question not only played a part in the
German Army but was a matter of special research and measures
in the armies all over the world.

In 1942 the conditions in the German Army and in the Med-
ical Services of the Wehrmacht became intensified only insofar
as with the beginning of the campaign against the Soviet Union
new difficulties presented themselves in this sphere, too. In the
campaigns against Poland and France it had been possible to
master the wound infections by the usual surgical means, but
the difficulties in the war against the USSR increased beyond
all measures. It is unnecessary to examine the reasons for this
more closely here. It is clear that they resulted from the great
distances and poor traffic conditions, but they were also caused
by climatic conditions prevailing there.

The fighting power of the German Army was so affected by
the heavy casualties that it was impossible to allocate a cor-
respondingly large number of experienced surgeons to the main
dressing stations in order to control bacterial wound infection
with surgical measures.

During the presentation of evidence the difficult situation in
which the German armies found themselves in the winter of
1941-42 on the Moscow front and in the south around Rostov was
repeatedly stressed. Here it was demonstrated clearly that the
German Wehrmacht, and with it the German people, were in-
volved in a life and death struggle.

The leaders of the German Wehrmacht would have neglected
their duty if confronted with these facts, had they not attempted
to solve, at any price, the problem as to which chemical prepara-
tions were capable of preventing bacterial wound infection and,
above all, gas gangrene, and also whether effective means could
be found at all. Whatever the answer to this question was, it
had to be found as soon as possible in order to avert an imminent
danger and to throw light on a question which was important to
the individual wounded soldier as well as to the striking power
of the whole army. After the failure of all attempts to solve
the problem through clinical observation of incidental wounds
and other methods, and, in view of the particularly difficult sit-
uation and especially of the time factor, there was nothing left
but to decide the question through an experiment on human
beings. The responsible leaders of the German Wehrmacht did
not hesitate to draw the conclusions resulting from this situa-
tion, and the head of the German Reich, who was at the same
time Commander in Chief of the German Wehrmacht, gave orders
for a final solution of this problem by way of large scale ex-
perimentation.

Let us examine the legal conclusions to be drawn from this
situation as it existed in 1942 for the German Wehrmacht and
therefore for the German state — in particular regarding the as-
sumption of an existing national emergency.

The problem of emergency and the specific case of self-defense
has been regulated in almost all criminal codes in a way ap-
plicable only to individual cases. The individual is granted im-
punity under certain conditions when “acting in an individual
emergency arising for himself or others”. The administration of
justice and legal literature, however, recognize that even the
commonwealth, the “state,” can find itself in an emergency, and
that acts which are meant to and actually do contribute to
overcome this emergency may be exempt from punishment.

1. First of all, the question has been raised whether the con-
ception of self-defense, conceived to cover individual cases, can
be extended to include a state self-defense, meaning a self-defense
for the benefit of the state and the commonwealth. The answer
to this question was a unanimous affirmative.

2. The same reasoning, however, as applied to self-defense
is also applicable to the conception of an emergency, as embodied,
for example, in Section 54 of the German Penal Code and in
almost all modern systems of penal law. These provisions, too,
were originally conceived to cover individual cases. But, using
them as a starting point, legal literature and the administration
of justice arrive at a recognition in principle of a national emer-
gency with a corresponding effect. With regard to the definition
of the concept of an emergency generally given in the penal
laws, the application of these provisions to the state, while jus-
tified in itself, can only be effected in principle.

When the idea of an emergency is applied to the state and
when the individual is authorized to commit acts for the purpose
of eliminating such a national emergency, here, as in the case of
the ordinary emergency determined by individual conditions, the
objective values must be estimated. The necessary consequences
of conceding such actions on the part of the individual must be
that not only is he absolved from guilt, but moreover his acts
are “justified”. In other words, the so-called national emergency,
even though it is recognized only as an analogous application
of the ordinary concept of emergency in criminal law, is a legal
excuse. But what does “application” in principle to the cases of
national emergency mean? Whether a national emergency is
“unprovoked” or not, whether, for example, the war waged is a
“war of aggression” can obviously be of no importance in this
connection. The existence of the emergency only is decisive. The
vital interests of the commonwealth and the state are substituted

for the limitation of individual interests. Summarizing, we can
define the so-called national emergency as an emergency in-
volving the vital interests of the state and the general public
which cannot be eliminated in any other way. As far as such
emergency authorizes action, not only may a legal excuse be
assumed but a true ground for justification exists.

I shall examine later how far an erroneously assumed national
emergency, a so-called putative emergency, is possible and is to
be considered as a legal excuse. What consequences arise from
this legal position in the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt?

1. As proved by the evidence the general situation in the
various theaters of war in the year 1942 was such that it brought
about an “actual”, that is, an immediately imminent danger to
the vital interests of the state as the belligerent power and to
the individuals affected by the war. The conditions on the eastern
front in the winter of 1941-42 as they have been repeatedly
described during the submission of evidence created a situation
which endangered the existence of the state, through the danger
of wound infection and the threat to the survival of the wounded
and the fighting strength of the troops arising therefrom.

It must be added that the past World War was fought not only
with man and material but also with propaganda. In this con-
nection I refer to the statements of the defendant Gebhardt in
the witness stand as far as they concern information given to
him by the Chief of Office V of the Reich Security Main Office,
SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe. This information shows that at that par-
ticular time the enemy tried to undermine the fighting spirit of the
German troops with pamphlets describing the organization and
material of the German Wehrmacht Medical Service as backward,
while on the other hand praising certain remedies of the Allied
Forces, for instance penicillin, as “secret miracle weapons”.

2. The assumption of a state of national emergency presupposes
that the action forming the subject of the indictment was taken
in order to remove the danger. By this is meant the objective
purpose of the action, not just the subjective purpose of the
individual committing the action. The question, therefore, is
whether the sulfanilamide experiments were an objectively ade-
quate means of averting the danger. This, however, does not mean
that the preparations really were an adequate means of expertly
combatting the danger. According to the evidence there can be
no doubt that these assumptions really did exist.

3. Finally, there must not be “any different way” of eliminating
the national emergency. One must not misunderstand this re-
quirement. Not every different way, which could be pursued
only by corresponding violations, excludes an appeal to national

emergency. The requirement mentioned does not mean that the
way of salvation pursued must necessarily be the only one pos-
sible. Of course, if the different possibilities of salvation constitute
evils of different degrees, the lesser one is to be chosen. It must
also be assumed that a certain proportion should be kept between
the violation and the evil inherent in the danger. In view of the
fact, however, that in the present case many tens of thousands
of wounded persons were in danger of death, this viewpoint does
not present any difficulty here.

According to the evidence there can be no doubt that a better
way could not have been chosen. On the contrary, it has been
shown that in peacetime as well as in wartime everything was
tried without success to clarify the problem of the efficacy of
sulfanilamides. And the fact, too, that prisoners were chosen as
experimental subjects who had been sentenced to death and were
destined for execution, and to whom the prospect of pardon was
held out and actually granted cannot be judged in a negative
sense. This fact cannot be used as an argument when examining
the legal viewpoint, because participation in these experiments
meant the only chance for the prisoners to escape imminent
execution. In this connection I refer to the explanations I have
already given in connection with the so-called probable consent.

Excuse

In addition to the general national emergency discussed, the
literature of international law recognizes also a special war emer-
gency. According to this, “in a state of self-defense and emer-
gency, even such actions are permitted which violate the laws of
warfare and therefore international law.” But in the sense of
international law the “military necessity of war” which by itself
never justifies the violation of the laws of warfare differs from
self-defense and emergency. Emergency and necessity of war,
however, are different concepts. The emergency due to which the
self-preservation and the self-development of the threatened
nation are at stake justifies, according to general principles
recognized by the national laws of all civilized countries, the vio-
lation of every international standard and thus also of the legal
principles of the laws of warfare. When applying the concepts
of self-defense and emergency as recognized by criminal and
international law, the illegality of violations committed is ex-
cluded if the nation found itself in a situation which could not be
relieved by any other means.

In this connection the following must be pointed out:

I have already explained that the experimental subjects, on
whom the sulfanilamide experiments forming the subject of this

case were performed, came under German jurisdiction, even if
one holds the opinion that Poland’s case was not one of genuine
“debellatio” but only of “ocupatio bellica”.* However, whatever
opinion one might hold with regard to this question, there can
be no doubt that assuming an emergency according to interna-
tional law, the performance of the experiments would have been
justified even if at the time the experimental subjects had still
been citizens of an enemy nation. Decisive for the regulation of
the conditions of such persons according to international law are
the “Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land” annexed to the Hague Convention, dated 18 October 1907.
According to the above statements, however, even a violation of
such special conventions, as contained for instance in the special
prohibitions of Article 23, is justified during a genuine war
emergency. The fact that the special conditions characterizing a
real war emergency are existent invalidates the objection that citi-
zens of another country should not have been used for the ex-
periments.

The Evaluation of Conflicting Rights and
Interests as Legal Excuse

According to well-considered opinions, we must start from the
premise that the defendants, both in principle and in procedure,
are to be tried according to German criminal law. They lived
under it during the period in question and were subject thereto.
For this reason I wish to approach one more viewpoint which
should be considered independently, and in addition to the legal
excuses already mentioned, when judging the conduct of the de-
fendants.

For many years the legal provisions for emergency cases have
proved inadequate. For a long time an endeavor was made to fill
the gaps with theoretical explanations of a general nature, and
finally the Reich Supreme Court handed down basic decisions
expressly recognizing an “extra legal emergency”. The consid-
erations on which they were based are known as the “objective
principle of the evaluation of conflicting rights and interests.”
In the legal administration of the Reich Supreme Court and in
further discussions this principle, to be sure, is combined with
subjective considerations of courses of action taken by the per-
petrator in the line of duty. Therefore it is necessary to discuss
both considerations, that of evaluating conflicting rights and in-
terests and that of compulsion by duty together, even if we must
and shall keep them distinctly separated for the time being.

1 See section on Status of Occupied Poland under International Law, vol. I, pp. 974-979,

The consideration of an evaluation of conflicting rights and
interests as legal excuse is generally formulated as follows:

“Whoever violates or jeopardizes a legally protected right
or interest of lesser value in order to save thereby a legally
protected right or interest of greater value does not act in
violation of the law.”

The lesser value must yield to the greater one. The act, when
regarded from this point of view, is justified, its unlawfulness —
and not merely the guilt or the perpetrator — is cancelled out.

This so-called principle of evaluating conflicting rights and
interests is first of all a formal principle which establishes the
precedence of the more valuable right or interest as such. This
formal evaluation principle requires on its part a further material
evaluation of the rights or interests comparatively considered.
This evaluation again requires the adoption of the law and its
purport to the general attitude of a civilization and, finally, to
the conception of law itself.

Let us examine the conclusions to be drawn from this legal
situation in our case: Agreement and so-called likely agreement,
just as well as a national emergency and a war emergency,
constitute special legal justifications, the recognition of which
allows us to dispense with a recourse to the general principle of
evaluating conflicting rights and interests. The latter retains its
subsidiary importance. Furthermore, those two special legal
justifications refer in their purport to a fair and equitable way
of thinking as well as to the proportional importance of various
types of evils; thus they themselves include the conception of
evaluating conflicting rights and values. For this reason, among
others, the following must be explained in detail at this point:

A national emergency and a war emergency were unmistakably
in existence in 1942. Every day the lives of thousands of
wounded were endangered unless the threatening wound infection
could be checked by the application of proper remedies and the
elimination of inadequate remedies. The danger was “actual”.
Immediate help had to be provided. The “public interest” de-
manded the experimental clarification of this question. The evi-
dence has shown that the question could not be clarified by experi-
ments on animals or by the observation of incidental wounds.

The last word on this question, however, is not said merely by
reference to the public interest. Opposed to the public interest
are the individual interests. The saying “necessity knows no
law” cannot claim unlimited validity. But just as little can the
infringement on individual interests in order to save others be

841584 — 49—2

considered as “contrary to good morals”. The evidence has shown
that the members of the resistance movement of Camp Ravens-
brueck who were condemned to death could only escape imminent
execution if they submitted to the experiments which form the
subject of this indictment. There is no need to examine here and
now whether the experimental subjects did give their consent or
whether they presumably would have consented, if, from their
personal point of view and in the full knowledge of the situation,
they could have made a decision within the meaning of an ob-
jective judicial opinion based on probability. What really mat-
ters is the question of whether after a just and fair evaluation
of the interests of the general public and the real interests of
the experimental subjects, the defendant could conclude that,
all circumstances considered, the execution of the experiments
was justifiable. Without doubt this question can be answered in
the affirmative. Quite apart from the interest of the state in the
execution of the experiments, participation in the experiments was
in the real and well-considered interest of the experimental
subjects themselves, since this participation offered the only
possibility of saving their lives through an act of mercy.

jfc *

The Defendant's Erroneous Assumption of an Emergency

{Putative Emergency)

I have already mentioned the circumstances which justify the
assumption of a national emergency and a war emergency caused
by the special conditions prevailing in 1942. If these conditions
actually prevailed, the illegality of the act and not only the guilt
of the perpetrator would be excluded for reasons previously enu-
merated. If the defendant had erroneously assumed circumstances
which if they really had existed would have justified a national
emergency and a war emergency, then, according to the general
principles already mentioned, the intent of the defendant and
thus his guilt would also be eliminated in this respect. The
evidence, especially the defendant’s own statements on the wit-
ness stand, leaves no doubt that, when the experiments began
in 1942, he had assumed the existence of such circumstances
which were indeed the starting point and motive for ordering
and carrying out these experiments.

$ * $ $ 4: jf; $

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT

SI EVERS *

* * * * * * *

May I remind you of the exciting part of my case in chief
which dealt with Sievers’ participation in the resistance against
the National Socialist government and administration. By put-
ting forward his activity in a resistance movement, the defend-
ant Sievers does not endeavor to obtain a mitigation of an
eventual condemnation. In my opinion, this activity must under
all circumstances result in his acquittal, even though, contrary
to expectation the High Tribunal should tend towards the opinion
that Sievers had participated in the accused crimes.

In the first place it is my intention to discuss a series of legal
questions that have at all times been acknowledged in the crim-
inal law of all civilized nations. It is not by any means the task of
the High Tribunal to apply any special article of law, but, from
general legal and legal-philosophical principles, to lay down a rule
finding and creating a new law to meet a new situation. It need
hardly be said that first and foremost I am supporting my own
client. But in your verdict, you, your Honors, are not judging
only this defendant. Beyond this particular case your verdict
has a far more extensive, general, nay, world-wide importance.
For it is the first time that a tribunal of such importance is to
decide upon the actions of a member of a resistance movement.
Consequently, your judgment is a fundamental one and a sign-
post for our time for many, many other defendants and accused
men in this connection who have stood before this Tribunal or
will be brought before other courts. Your decision for all time
extends to cover thousands and thousands of men who, at some
time, may be put in the position of opposing some criminal system
of government by similar means as Sievers did. On this our globe
there are still autocracies and totalitarian dictatorships and it
requires only little foresight to realize that other dictatorships
may involve other international entanglements and wars of the
most horrible nature. Furthermore, in the future, mankind will
again and again be in sore need of courageous men who for the
sake of their nation and for the welfare of mankind oppose
themselves to such dangerous doings. It is for such champions
and for such groups of champions that your verdict will be a
criterion and a signpost. You are deciding in advance the future
possibilities and the sphere of action of future resistance move-
ments against criminal governments and their chiefs. You are

• Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, pp. 11020-11048.

offered the opportunity of checking such movements by your
verdict. But you are also able to give them the safety necessary
for their dangerous enterprise and the success of their proceed-
ings. How and where would such helpers be found in future if,
apart from the immediate peril, they have to reckon with the
additional danger of being called to account by the very people
for whom they risked their lives? And therefore, your Honors,
with your verdict in the Sievers case you take upon you a respon-
sibility before the whole world and for all time to come, a respon-
sibility as is seldom placed upon a tribunal. But on the other hand
you can also say with pride that with this judgment you render
an immeasurable service to the world in its struggle for peace and
justice.

Therefore the reasons for your verdict in the Sievers case are
so immensely important, far more important than the trifling
Sievers case can be in the universal history of all times. I am
forced to detail the particulars of these problems.

It goes without saying that the member of a resistance move-
ment can only refer to his resistance, if this resistance is lawful.
This will not always be the case; for, political crime and similar
actions committed for political motives are crimes and will re-
main such. He who removes a political adversary only to take his
position or to open the way for his partisans acts unlawfully and
is liable to punishment. The situation, however, becomes different
if not only a political discussion is interrupted by murder, but
where a tyrant whose government is inscribed with bloody letters
in the annals of mankind is at last felled to the ground. In this
case the perpetrator is supported by an acknowledged excuse.
This excuse is self-defense.

According to the German Penal Code, Article 53, an action is
not punishable if it is committed in self-defense. And self-defense
is such defense as is necessary to ward off from oneself or another
person an imminent unlawful attack.

These principles are, however, not only German legal stipula-
tions. They are legal values of all nations and all times. To a large
extent they tally with human sentiments and are termed “the
great law of defense.” They are already found in Roman law in
the formulation “vim vi expellere [repellere] licet” — force may
be driven out by force — and have been enthusiastically taken over
by English common law and by American law, as stated by
Wharton, “Criminal Law”, paragraph 613. They authorize every
individual to ward off injury from himself or another person
with all necessary means at his command. From this point of
view too the struggle against a criminal government threatening
the peace of the world, preparing aggressive wars, ready without

any purpose or need to plunge the whole world into immeasurable
misery from sheer striving for power, from presumption and
conceit; struggle and resistance against such a government and
such guidance are lawful and permissible, no matter by what
means they may be carried on. Since the end of the war even, the
opinion has been maintained more and more that such a struggle
is not only lawful and permissible but is even the duty of every
individual. Is not the collective guilt of the whole German nation
substantiated by the charge that it witnessed the doings of the
Nazi government without interfering at least with a secretly
clenched fist in its pocket? Murder and manslaughter, bodily
injury and restriction of liberty inflicted upon the potentates and
responsible men of such a system are acts of self-defense for the
benefit of peace and mankind. They are lawful and exempt from
punishment; they are a duty if there is no help possible in any
other way.

From times immemorial this question concerning the lawful-
ness and duty of committing political murder has engaged Hot
only lawyers but also a large number of poets and philosophers.
Friedrich von Schiller justified the murder committed on Gessler
as the last desperate attempt to escape slavery. Thus the juridical
vindication of murdering a criminal tyrant is paralleled by its
high moral estimation.

But it may happen that not only the real assailants come to
grief. He who has to ward off an attack may be forced to im-
plicate a third person hitherto not involved. This case too is
provided for in the German Penal Code and is termed “neces-
sity”. The regulation of Article 54 runs as follows: “No punish-
able act has been committed when the act — self-defense apart —
was committed in an emergency, which could be met in no other
way, to escape a present danger to the life or body of the perpe-
trator or a relative of his.”

The legal codes of all nations and all ages have been com-
pelled to face the problem of the conflict between two legal values
which can only be solved by hurting or even annihilating one of
the two. Justice cannot insist with utter consistency upon the
individual respecting foreign rights and sacrificing his own at
all costs and under any circumstances. A Frenchman says to this
question: “Cette theorie est admirable pour des saints et pour
des heros, mais elle n’est point faite pour la vulgaire humanite”
— “This theory is admirable for saints and heroes, but it is not
for common humanity” — [Pradier — Fodere, vol. I, page 367,
Traite du droit international public europeen et americain.]
“Quod non est licitum in lege, necessitas facit licitum” — “What
is not permitted by law, necessity makes permissible” — [say3

the Roman law], and the French lawyer Rossi says: “L’acte ne
peut etre excusable lorsque l’agent cede a l’instinct de sa propre
conservation, lorsqu’il se trouve en presence d’un peril imminent,
lorsqu’il s’agit de la vie.” — “The act can be excused only when
the perpetrator yields to the instinct of self preservation, when
he finds himself faced with imminent danger, when life itself
is at stake.” — An old German legal proverb runs: “Necessity
knows no law.” Last but not least, American law deals with this
problem under the name “necessity” ( Wharton , “Criminal Law,”
par. 6Jf2), a literal translation of the German expression “Not”.
So by virtue of necessity a shipwrecked sailor may push his
fellow-sufferer from the board which is too small to save both of
them. If applied to resistance movements against criminal gov-
ernments, these principles mean that third persons hitherto un-
concerned may also be involved, if there is no other alternative,
if “Not”, “necessitas”, “necessity” requires it peremptorily and
unavoidably.

You, your Honors, are called upon to bring the principles of
“self-defense” and of “necessity”, “this great law of defense”
to their common denominator, to apply them to the Sievers case
and thus insert them into the unwritten rules of the international
relations of public and political law. The Anglo-Saxon legal way
of thinking and the principles of natural law will give you
valuable support in forming the verdict.

Now I can turn to the specific case of Sievers.

In order to judge his actions the following questions are of a
decisive importance: Was there a German resistance movement
at all? Did the Hielscher group belong to this resistance move-
ment? Was this group to be taken seriously and what were its
aims? Was Sievers a member of this group and what were his
tasks? What was his attitude in performing these tasks? Were
there also other possibilities for him? It has frequently been
maintained that there was no German resistance movement. But
the German resistance existed.

I must, however, confess that the question “Where was this
resistance?” readily suggests itself to such people as are not ac-
quainted with the internal conditions of Germany, above all during
the war. I must also grant the fact that scarcely more than
Stauffenberg’s plot with its staggering consequences came before
the public.

He who puts such a question completely misjudges the con-
ditions under which the whole resistance movement had to work
against the Nazi Government. He forgets that up to the fatal
date of 20 July 1944, he had also no idea of the group round
Stauffenberg. I am therefore all the more forced to give a concise

exposition of the situation which in the Third Reich everybody
opposing the Nazi Government had to face.

From the very beginning it was the aim of the authoritarian
government to get hold of every German man, every German
woman, all children, and old men in order to bring them up in the
spirit of the new method of government. The totalitarian striving
for power did not stop short at personal freedom. It removed
professional and economic organizations, cultural and social in-
stitutions, some of which were reestablished in another form, sub-
ject to the control of the Nazi Government.

It was against this state of things that the struggle set in from
the very beginning. Nothing would be more wrong than to believe
that this struggle could be waged in the open street with large
quantities of propaganda material, display of physical force, with
fire arms, bombs, war, and rumors of war. Even in the trade
unions, the most consistent and resolute adversaries of the new
government in 1933, such a method was not possible. This govern-
ment kept a tight rein over the whole public apparatus controlling
in an increasing degree the private spheres through the organi-
zations of the SD, Gestapo, etc. The ambiguous stipulations of
the law against malicious acts or insults to the state and party
(Heimtueckegesetz) made possible the imprisonment of people
even for accidental deprecatory remarks. Political discrimination
and the constant danger of being sent to a concentration camp
were the effects of many innocent remarks. No newspaper could
have been found to agitate against the oppressors. But if hand-
bills were secretly distributed the contents of which defamed the
Nazi government, the whole apparatus of the police, Gestapo,
SD, etc., was set in motion. The possession of weapons was con-
sidered circumstantial evidence of treasonable enterprises and
meant capital punishment for the imprudent. It must be added
that there was a widely extended spy system sticking to every-
body’s heels. One had even to guard oneself against one’s nearest
relations and children.

These few words concerning the internal situation of Germany
were necessary as an answer to the absurd question put in Stock-
holm to the witness Hielscher: “Why did you not speak in the
open market place [publicly] ?” ( Tr . p. 5935.)

The most obvious kind of opposition was offered by the two
great Christian churches. How much and how often were the
antichrist and his false prophets not preached against, how many
clergymen of all confessions were sent to prisons, penitentiaries,
concentration camps, nay, to death? It is true, the churches could
venture forth more openly than other people. For they did not
intend to participate in a forcible removal of the system, in the

killing of its leaders and representatives, in the fight with arms.
But the nonecclesiastical resistance groups had realized that the
Nazi dictatorship could not be overthrown without violence; they
were not subject to the political-philosophical impediments and
restrictions of the churches, they could not throw off the mask
until the day of action had dawned. Up to that time they were
condemned to be silent, they had to camouflage, acting on the
old principle of all conspirators: “Never speak of your aim, but
always think of it!” If they had forgotten this principle, sooner
or later unquestioningly they would have been betrayed by a
spy and liquidated by the Gestapo. They would never have got
as far as action. Did not the group round Stauffenberg act in
this way too? Who knew of its existence before the bomb
burst in Hitler’s headquarters on 20 July 1944 ? The same was the
case with all the other resistance groups which unfortunately no
longer had the possibility of acting and some of which were
traced and secretly killed in spite of this.

The fact that all of them existed is proved, however, by the
small number of publications: the pamphlets of Emil Henk, of
Franklin L. Ford and other authors, and Neuhaeusler’s book,
“Cross and Swastika”.

But downright classical witnesses are the numerous bloody vic-
tims whom the People’s Court of Justice [Volksgerichtshof] and
the Gestapo had sent to the concentration camps and to death.

One of these groups was the group around Hielscher, a member
of which was the defendant Sievers.

There was a Hielscher group, it existed, it acted. Hielscher
himself is an unimpeachable witness of this. In connection with
20 July 1944, he was imprisoned for three months and was to be
hanged. Hielscher’s illegal activity is sworn to by many other
no less trustworthy witnesses. As the first of them I mention the
political emigrant Dr. Borkenau, who had been working against
National Socialism at least since 1928. He had known Hielscher
since 1928. He speaks of his hostility to National Socialism, of a
“sharp attitude”. At that time he frequently negotiated and con-
spired with Hielscher, who set forth the methods of his fight.
During his emigration, Dr. Borkenau watched Hielscher’s activity
from abroad and again and again he heard: “Hielscher keeps on
fighting”. If we are told so by an emigrant, we may well believe it.
Another witness who never lost connection with Hielscher was
Dr. Topf, who himself was an active member of the resistance
movement. He too described Hielscher as a violent antagonist of
National Socialism, working and struggling unswervingly. I refer
to the many affidavits which I presented in this connection.

It does not speak against Hielscher’s oppositional activity that

he did not stand out more in public. For him too, camouflaging up
to the moment of decision was an imperative requirement, and
Dr. Borkenau calls it a downright masterpiece that he so emi-
nently succeeded in doing so.

Sievers was a member of the Hielscher group

There cannot be the least doubt of this fact. Apart from all
the testimony, the whole personality of my client excluded any
Nazi attitude. His nature and his development necessarily made
him a decisive adversary of Hitler’s system of oppression, terror,
and murder. Both his origin and the interests of his youth brought
him into contact with people who kept aloof as much as possible
from the Nazi way of thinking. He was the son of a director of
ecclesiastical music; he pursued historical and religious studies.
His nature led him to the Boy Scouts, in short to such interests as
National Socialism calumniated with all its powers of ridicule
and combated violently with stubborn dislike. All those persons
who either testified or in affidavits gave evidence about his char-
acter describe him as follows: an upright man with lofty ideals
of deeply rooted humanity and a strong sense of law and justice.
If you combine this picture of Sievers painted by notorious anti-
fascists with all the authenticated aid that Sievers bestowed on
victims of Nazism, it is only a small step to the conviction that
Sievers was also a member of a resistance movement.

Perhaps the prosecution may say: “I do not believe all these
stories, for both Hielscher and Sievers did not achieve anything.”

That would wrong Sievers to a high degree, your Honors ! Other
resistance groups too had the misfortune that they had not more
opportunity to act. The witness Hielscher exposed very clearly the
reasons why a standstill was inevitable after the failure of the
plot on 20 July 1944. As Hielscher and his associates could no
longer depend upon the army, they were compelled to start again
from the very beginning.

What were the intentions and the mission of the defendant
Sievers within the Hielscher group? Hielscher himself answers
that. Sievers’ tasks were of two kinds: (1) Gathering news from
the immediate proximity of Himmler as basis for the disposal of
the resistance forces with regard to place, time, and kind of action.
(2) Sievers was not only a spy and a scout; at the moment of
action he was destined and ready to do away with Himmler.
These two tasks require a double legal examination: Were they
in themselves permissible, lawful, or even a duty? The answer
to this question is to be found in the principles which I evolved
in the idea of self-defense in the sphere of political struggle. What
measures was he allowed to take ? To what extent could he venture

to advance into the domain of criminality? To what extent could
he involve uninitiated third persons in his plans, even actual vic-
tims of Nazism? The rules of “necessity” lead the way for judg-
ing and solving this problem.

In taking up the first question I can be relatively brief. After
all we know today, it is an irrefutable fact that Hitler and his
accomplices terrorized the German Nation and the whole world in
a criminal way and with criminal means, that from the beginning
they were an immediate peril to peace and all civilization and
that finally the worst apprehensions turned to ghastly reality.
Therefore the first prerequisite for the defense of “necessity” is
beyond all doubt a present illegal attack on the highest goods of
mankind. To put it in the words of the German Penal Code that
was the “necessity” (“not”) which was to be warded off.

But we also know that this defense was not to be accomplished
with the normal means of a democratic parliamentary system. I
described the truly diabolical organization by which it had been
rendered impossible to make use of these means. Thence follows
that the removal of Hitler and his accomplices was the only pos-
sible expedient to break and smash this system. Less hard and
violent means were not available.

As a matter of course it follows that Hielscher’ s plan to do
away with Himmler had become legal and compulsory for those
in the position to execute it. After the evidence of Hielscher and
other trustworthy witnesses, it cannot be denied that Sievers had
been charged with this task.

If it was justified to do away with Himmler, the accompanying
and preparing scouting-activity was justified too.

Before answering the question to what extent Sievers could
involve third persons, I have to sketch in a few lines the tactics of
Hielscher and the position of Sievers.

It was not in vain that Hielscher himself gave full particulars
on this question. We also heard other witnesses, Dr. Borkenau,
Dr. Topf. Sievers clearly outlined his tasks. All this evidence is
in such unanimous agreement that no doubt of its truth could
arise.

Hielscher was one of the first and few people who realized
that the way to take measures against the system could be only
from within the ranks of the party itself. He had gained the firm
conviction that a prospect of success could be seen only by doing
away with the heads of the Nazi Government and assuming the
government from the top and that nothing, nothing at all, was
to be anticipated from a revolution of the people from below.
A revolution of such a kind would have been of no avail, as it
would very quickly have been stifled in torrents of blood.

The knowledge of these facts required four groups of measures
to be taken, the particulars of which Hielscher detailed on 15
April :

Preparation of the undertaking by a well-camouflaged organiza-
tion of trusted men and spies within the ranks of the NSDAP,
i.e., the Trojan Horse policy.

Placing suitable courageous men in positions as near as possible
to leading personages of Nazism, the most dangerous of whom
was Himmler.

Doing away with Himmler and other leaders of the Nazi Gov-
ernment upon a given cue.

Taking over the government by an organization prepared in
advance.

In spite of all liberty of action granted to the “activists” of
his group, Hielscher had realized that success could only be ex-
pected if everybody, in strict discipline, obeyed his orders only.
This was the only way for him to hold the reins and to give the
cue the right moment. Here I must emphasize that within the
scope of this indispensable discipline, Sievers in all details acted in
complete unison with Hielscher, that in all important moments he
described the real state of affairs and asked for his instructions.
In this way Hielscher obtained ample information of everything
enacted around Sievers and of what Sievers did himself. Sievers
was nothing but the tool in the hands of the leader of the move-
ment. Therefore, your Honors, your verdict affects Sievers’ com-
missioner, Hielscher, in just the same way as Sievers himself.
Hielscher is condemned together with Sievers, as he is acquitted
with Sievers. With the same courage of responsibility with which
he placed Sievers and other accomplices in most dangerous posi-
tions, Hielscher could declare at the end of his evidence that
he not only took but also claimed the whole responsibility for all
the deeds with which his follower Sievers would be charged as a
result in this trial.

Hielscher sketches the task of Sievers as follows: In the belly
of the Trojan horse, i.e., under the color of eager and en-
thusiastic cooperation his duty would be ( a ) to scout and to spy,
( b ) profiting by his influence, to place other persons in similar
positions for the same purposes, or in places where they would be
given the possibility of working undisturbed, (c) to back en-
dangered members of the resistance movement and if possible to
rescue them, and finally ( d ) to do away with Himmler at the
moment of action.

This last item was the essential point of the task of my client.
All the other tasks were inferior to this aim and assignment, they

only served to prepare and support it. It is from this point of view
that his whole conduct must be understood and all his acts judged.

What did Sievers achieve in the sphere of this task?

I cannot reiterate all the details that I set forth in the first
part of my plea. I came to the conclusion that Sievers did not make
himself guilty of complicity or assistance in the facts charged in
the indictment. If, however, you suppose with the prosecution that
Sievers is to be found guilty of some of the counts of the indict-
ment, it is my task to justify this conduct before the forum of a
concept of justice transcending codified law, and to expound it to
the Tribunal.

How did it come about that in 1942 Sievers remained in his
position when the Ahnenerbe came into contact with medical ex-
periments which possibly might assume a criminal character? We
must not forget that Sievers was assigned the removal of Himmler
and that in the Hielscher group he was the only person who could
have been entrusted with such a task. Properly speaking, in
Hielscher’s group he had the key position; the success or failure
of the whole enterprise depended on him alone. For Himmler was
the most dangerous personality in the Nazi system, because in his
quality of Chief of the Police and Commander of the Reserve
Army all the internal political armed forces were concentrated in
his hand. Consequently he had the power of nipping in the bud
every rebellion. Himmler was able to rule without Hitler, whereas
Hitler could not rule without Himmler. The latter was to be done
away with first. Should Himmler be overlooked or should he
somehow succeed in escaping, the whole enterprise would be en-
dangered. Himmler’s importance is therefore the measure of the
importance of Sievers, who had to be ready for the decisive blow
in Himmler’s immediate proximity. To ask if this post could be
abandoned is to answer it in the negative.

As Sievers was fully conscious of the importance of such a de-
cision, he became involved in the greatest internal conflict of his
life. Of two evils, the worse had to be avoided and the smaller
to be endured, or both of them to be shunned.

To do the latter would certainly have been the most convenient
solution. That Sievers got into this conflict amply demonstrates
his consciousness of responsibility, his love of justice and hu-
manity. As to the struggle with his soul, he certainly did not
succeed in getting the better of himself. Too many questions
depended on his decision, not only for himself but above all
for the resistance movement as a whole. We must try to look into
the soul of a man, who, on the one hand, was exposed to the
pressure of an enormous aversion to the approaching threatening
events and, on the other hand, knew only too well that in his

position he could no longer fulfill his task if he obeyed his personal
impulses. Perhaps it would have been possible for Sievers to
leave his office without creating a great sensation and without
considerable disadvantage for himself. Could he not have retired
to cooperate in some innocuous scientific research? But in doing
so Sievers would have been a runaway, a deserter. In his agony
of soul, Sievers applied to Hielscher who after mature con-
sideration and deliberation came to the decision: Sievers will stay!

For the post in Himmler’s proximity could not be renounced.
If Sievers abandoned it, Hielscher would be under the necessity
of entrusting him with another position near Himmler or of re-
placing him by another member of the movement with the same
task. Was this possible ? Would he, remaining near Himmler, have
not time and again come into the same dilemma? Was it possible
to wait and see? Could it be expected that another man would
be more successful? Would not Sievers, in spite of all circumspec-
tion, have raised suspicion in substantiating his withdrawal? For
to do so openly and with protest would have been downright
madness. Imagine only the danger he would have conjured up
for himself and his associates! What could his withdrawal have
availed? One more question: if Sievers’ withdrawal could have
prevented the human experiments at all, that would have been
only a partial success. For as to the aim in its totality, the removal
of Himmler and the Nazi Government, nothing would have been
gained but a further delay of the decision or the impossibility of
achieving it because of the loss of the key position. As still more
victims of the Nazi Government would have been the result, a
partial success had to be sacrificed in favor of the great aim.

If you try to answer these questions there cannot be the least
doubt that the decision Hielscher arrived at was the only pos-
sibility.

That brings me to the last, to the most important point of my
defense, to the question:

“How was Sievers to act in his position?”

Without any doubt, he was compelled to make certain conces-
sions. He was forced to camouflage, i.e., to accommodate himself
outwardly to his surroundings which he was going to spy on and
to remove. Every spy has to camouflage and I do not betray a
secret in mentioning that in wartime many a man donned the
uniform of the enemy. It is generally known that in 1942 the
French General Giraud performed his escape from German cap-
tivity in the uniform of a German general.

When Sievers was a member of the party from 1929 to 1931,
when later on he joined the NSDAP and the SS again, when he

filled higher positions in these organizations, when he held the
position of Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe and suffered himself
to be promoted to a higher rank in the SS, without any doubt at
all that was part of the camouflage measures which Hielscher, Dr.
Borkenau, Dr. Topf, and other witnesses call the indispensable
prerequisite, the compulsory mask for the tasks of the defendant
Sievers.

Nobody will pretend that these camouflages which were to
render possible a legally approved, nay, desirable aim, are in
themselves punishable and illegal. Sievers’ outward membership in
the SS is therefore excused by its camouflage purpose. And it is
equally unobjectionable that occasionally he played the part of
a good Nazi. The duty of doing so had expressly been urged upon
him by Hielscher. The career of the organizer or an active member
of a German underground movement would have found a sudden
end if he had not behaved like a Nazi.

All the more seriously must I turn to the question of Sievers’
consent to and further participation in the human experiments
and the establishment of the collection of skeletons, in which third
persons suffered bodily injury.

Here the question is raised where are the bounds of necessity
if it involves actions which in themselves are punishable facts.
The answer to this question is the essential point of the Sievers
case.

4 The legal orders of the world set up the principle: “The legal
values damaged by the action committed under necessity, must
not be of a disproportionally greater value than the protected
and rescued legal value” That is the principle of proportion con-
cerning which Wharton [“Criminal Law”], paragraph 642, says,
“Sacrifice of another’s life, excusable when necessary to save one’s
own.”

What were the competing legal values in the Sievers case?

On the one hand, there was the civilization of the world, the
peace of the earth, humanity, the lives and existence of millions
of men threatened and hurt by Hitler’s criminal government. Such
actions are called crimes against peace and humanity by the new
international law which threatens them with the severest punish-
ments. The Allied Nations considered these legal values worthy
of their soldiers enthusiastically going to war and death for
them.

On the other hand, you will find the lives of individuals, their
bodily safety, the respect and esteem of their personality, their
liberty and the free expression of their will, certainly legal values
of no less high value. There may have been hundreds of victims.
But it was a meager number in comparison with the multitudes

that Hitler, Himmler, and their accomplices had already murdered
and continued murdering.

My question runs : Which of the two contending legal values is
more valuable from the point of view of proportion?

I am far from excusing the ghastly crimes that happened in
the concentration camps or even minimizing them, but with all
my abhorrence for them I cannot help answering: The protection
of civilization and humanity deserves preference over the life and
health of individuals, deplorable as the inevitable sacrifices may
be. So finally it was necessary, absolutely requisite, to put up
with the violation of the less valuable legal values and to rescue
the more precious, the whole. Sievers’ remaining at his post in
the Ahnenerbe was absolutely necessary for the removal of
Himmler.

Of course it would not be difficult to state post festum that
Sievers could have acted differently, that he ought not have ad-
vanced thus far. But up to now nobody has been able to tell us
hoiv he should have acted. Even the public prosecutor did not try
to make a concrete proposal.

* * * * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT

HOVEN *

In two further parts of my closing brief I dealt with the kill-
ings which Dr. Hoven either undertook himself or which were
undertaken with his knowledge.

In part (b) of the closing brief, I stated that these killings
had no connection with the euthanasia plan.

I further stated that it can be considered proved that Dr.
Hoven killed only two prisoners himself, and that about 50 or 60
prisoners were killed by order of those responsible for the German
and foreign political prisoners with the knowledge of Dr. Hoven.

I have set forth a legal evaluation of these killings in a further
paragraph under (e) of the closing brief.

The legal arguments as set forth in the closing brief are taken
from the work of the well known American criminologist Whar-
ton, Criminal Laiv. The first part of this argument contains, under
(e), the literal quotations from this book.

According to common law, the killing of a man can be either
murder, manslaughter, excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide.
Excusable homicide and justifiable homicide are not punishable.
The present American law does not differentiate between justi-

♦ Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, pp. 11266-11288.

fiable homicide and excusable homicide. I refer to my closing
brief, particularly to the statements of Wharton in his book
Criminal Law , 12th edition, volume I, 1932, pages 826 to 879.
According to Wharton, excuse and justification for a homicide
are either repulsion of felonious assault, or prevention of felony.

The right of self-defense, i.e., repulsion of felonious assault, is
restricted to a narrowly defined number of persons.

On the other hand, everybody is entitled to prevent a crime.
I refer to the details contained in my legal arguments of my
closing brief.

Killing a man to prevent a felonious crime requires the following
conditions which are set forth in my closing brief:

(1) The perpetrator must have the bona fide belief that the
commission of a felonious crime is immediately impending. It is
not a condition that such a crime would actually have been com-
mitted. The bona fide belief of the accused is quite sufficient. In
this connection I refer to the legal arguments of the closing brief.

(2) This belief of the accused must not be negligently adopted.

(3) There must not be any other possibility of preventing a
crime than the killing of a person. In other words — the killing
must be the only means available to prevent the crime.

The prosecution's assertion in its final plea, “One must not
kill five to save five hundred", therefore, cannot be considered
generally valid either from the point of view of German or Amer-
ican law.

On the basis of the statements of the prosecution, I have not
been able to see clearly whether that sentence had reference only
to the justification of experiments on human beings or else to
the killings which were carried out by Dr. Hoven or with his
knowledge.

The justification of the killings is materially distinguished from
that of the experiments. Those spies, stool-pigeons, and traitors,
for whose killing Dr. Hoven accepted responsibility when in the
witness stand, had planned to commit serious crimes against their
fellow prisoners. Therefore, if the three prerequisites which I
mentioned are given, we are concerned with cases of justifiable
or excusable homicide.

In my closing brief, I elaborately explained that these condi-
tions existed in the case of all the killings for which Dr. Hoven
accepted the responsibility.

The defendant Dr. Hoven had the conviction and good faith
that the spies and traitors, who were killed by him or with his
knowledge, were about to commit serious crimes, resulting in the

death of numerous inmates of the Buchenwald concentration
camp. During his examination on the witness stand, Dr. Hoven
gave a thorough description of this.

The decision on these killings was not reached by Dr. Hoven
alone. Dr. Hoven had no cause for that. It was not his life that
was endangered by those spies or traitors. It was, on the contrary,
the committee of political German and foreign prisoners, many
of whom are today holding high office in their countries. Those
persons guaranteed to Dr. Hoven that only such individuals would
be killed who already had been active and v/ould continue to be
active as spies and as traitors. These statements by Dr. Hoven
were expressly confirmed by a number of witnesses who were
heard on this subject. These observations may be found in the
affidavits I submitted. Above all it has been proven that only
such people of whom Dr. Hoven held that conviction were done
away with. Dr. Hoven testified to that effect and it has been re-
affirmed by the witnesses Dorn, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, and Hummel.

In his interrogation of 23 October 1946, Dr. Hoven stated ex-
pressly that he killed or knew only of the killings of such persons
of whom he was certain that their deaths were necessary to save
the lives of a multitude of political prisoners from the various
countries. At that early date he expressly emphasized that he
refused to carry out any of the killing orders of the Camp Com-
mander Koch; the prisoners who were covered by these orders
were put into the hospital or hidden in some other way by Dr.
Hoven.

Dr. Hoven had not negligently adopted the conviction that their
killing was essential for the salvation of huge numbers of pris-
oners.

This is proved first of all by the testimony of the witness Dorn,
who gave many details as to the means and methods employed
by Dr. Hoven and the illegal camp administration in becoming
convinced of the necessity for the killings. Dr. Hoven supplemented
those statements. Furthermore, they were corroborated by the
testimony of the witnesses Hummed, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, Philipp
Dirk, Baron von Pallandt, and van Eerde through their affidavits.

Actually, the prevention of the planned crimes, i.e., the mass
murder of a multitude of German and foreign political prisoners,
could be accomplished only through the killing of the spies and
traitors. There was no other means. What should Dr. Hoven have
done to prevent the crimes planned by the spies and traitors?
Those spies collaborated with the SS camp commanders to carry
out Himmler’s program to destroy the political prisoners. To
whom should Dr. Hoven have turned? Perhaps to the SS camp
commanders who worked with the spies and traitors? Or perhaps

841584 — 49—3

to the Gestapo or to the police who worked under Himmler’s
orders ?

There was no other way but the one v/hich Dr. Hoven chose in
order to prevent crimes. I showed that with details in my closing
brief. There I assembled the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution and defense who were heard on this point.

Here, I merely wish to stress the following statements by wit-
nesses :

In this courtroom, Dr. Kogon, a convinced Christian and a
deeply religious man, said: “There was really no other possibility
for the men of the illegal camp administration. I, as a convinced
Christian, do not deny those men the right to have killed people
in an emergency who in collaboration with the SS endangered the
lives of individuals or of many.”

The witness Pieck stated: “It may be that the liquidation of
many political prisoners and of SS spies employed in the camp
may make Dr. Hoven a murderer in the eyes of many; yet, for
me and others who understood the real situation he was a soldier
fighting on our side and risking a great deal.”

Pieck expressed the same opinion also in a letter to the Dutch
Ministry of Justice, a letter that was co-signed by the City Council
of Amsterdam and Mr. Droering, head of a department of the
State Institute for War Documentation in The Hague.

Pieck is one of the few who is best equipped to answer these
questions, for he belonged to the committee of German and foreign
political prisoners which formed itself at Buchenwald.

Father Katjetan, presently Supreme Abbot of one of the largest
religious orders in Czechoslovakia, a former prisoner of the con-
centration camp Buchenwald, declared, in the presence of witness
Dr. Horn, that those killings were an inevitable necessity for the
preservation of the inmates who had been abandoned by justice
in the camp.

Even the prosecution witness Roemhild had to admit on the
stand that it would have been impossible to save 20,000 prisoners
if those spies or traitors whom Dr. Hoven killed or of whose
killing he knew had remained alive.

Let me ask in this connection : What would have happened if a
man of Kushnir Kushnarev’s caliber had not been killed, and if
the murder of the Russian prisoners of war in the Buchenwald
camp had been continued? Would Dr. Hoven not stand before this
Tribunal even then? Then, would not the same charge be made
against Dr. Hoven as the one levelled against the Japanese Gov-
ernor of the Philippines who was tried before an American Mili-
tary Court for not having prevented atrocities and abuses ?

*******

d. Evidence

Testimony

Tage

Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 29

Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich Hiel-

scher 30

Extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. Andrew

C. Ivy 42

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT*

EXAMINATION

* * * * * * *

Judge Sebring: Witness, this question of the necessity for an
experiment, is it your view that it is for the state to determine
the extreme necessity for such an experiment and that thereafter
those who serve the state are to be bound by that procedure? I
think you can answer that “yes” or “no”.

Defendant Karl Brandt : This trial shows that it will be the
task of the state under all circumstances basically to clarify this
question for the future.

Q. Witness, as I understood your statements a moment ago,
they were that the physician, having once become the soldier,
thereafter must subordinate such medical-ethical views as he may
have when they are in conflict with a military order from higher
authority, is that true?

A. I didn’t want to express it in that form. I did not mean to say
that the physician, the moment he becomes a medical officer,
should change his basic attitude as a physician. Such an order can
in the very same way be addressed to a physician who is not a
soldier. I was referring to the entire situation as it prevailed with
us in Germany during the time of an authoritarian leadership.
This authoritarian leadership interfered with the personality and
the personal feelings of the human being. The moment an in-
dividuality is absorbed into the concept of a collective body, every
demand which is put to that individuality has to be absorbed
into the concept of a collective system. Therefore, the demands
of society are placed above every individual human being as an
entity, and this entity, the human being, is completely used in
the interests of that society.

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7 Feb. 47, pp.
2301-2661.

The difficult thing, and something which is hard to understand
basically, is that during our entire period, and Dr. Leibbrandt re-
ferred to that, everything was done in the interests of humanity
so that the individual person had no meaning whatsoever, and
the farther the war progressed, the stronger did this principal
thought appear. This was designated in the end as “total war,”
and in accordance with that, the leaders of the state gave orders
quite generally and demanded that orders be carried out. It was
very tragic for a number of persons, not only within the frame-
work of these experiments, but also in other situations that they
had to work under such orders. Without considering the entire
situation as it prevailed in Germany, one cannot understand the
question of these particular experiments at all.

jjc

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS
DR. FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER *

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Weisgerber: Witness, your name is Friedrich Hielscher?

Witness Hielscher: Friedrich Hielscher.

Q. You were born on 31 May 1902 in Plauen, and you are now
living in Marburg, that is right?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your profession ?

A. I am a scholar.

Q. And since when have you taken an active part in politics?

A. Since 1927.

Q. Did you belong to a definite political ideology?

A. No. I had a group of students to whom I expounded my
historical and philosophical theories and ideas.

Q. How did it happen that you became an opponent of the
NSDAP so early?

A. From the information available to me I knew the personal
inferiority of the National Socialist leaders. I could observe that
they were constantly lying and that what they really wanted was
undesirable.

Q. Did you believe, as early as 1928, that the NSDAP would
come to power?

A. No, not in 1928. In 1930, after the first election battle at
which the Party was victorious, I considered it possible. In 1931
I considered it probable. In 1932 I felt that it was certain.

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, IB, 16 Apr. 1947, pp.
6926 - 6994 .

Q. Did you join any definite political party with the intention
of combating 1 the NSDAP?

A. No. I considered it impossible for any of the 33 German
parties, with their bureaucratic methods, to be able to prevent a
fascist dictatorship, or if it had come into existence, to over-
throw it.

Q. What methods did you think were the right ones ?

A. The fascist dictatorship is a mass machine in a technical age.
Therefore it seemed to us to be out of the question, when con-
fronting such a mass body, to act openly. It seemed impossible
to carry out propaganda publicly. We were convinced that the
only thing possible was to form very small cadres which would
not be recognizable to an outsider and which at the proper time
could be employed for a coup d’etat.

Q. Then that was more or less the method of the Trojan Horse?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you, in your ideas and in your efforts to combat this
movement alone or did you have associates?

A. First, a selected group of my students were willing to col-
laborate in this illegal work; second, I knew quite a number of
personages of various political backgrounds with whom I agreed
that this regime would not last.

Q. That was before 1933?

A. That was around 1933 — 1932-33.

Q. Now came the 30th of January 1933, the so-called seizure of
power, and now your real work began. How and when did you
apply your method of the Trojan Horse?

A. This group of my students, who were willing to collaborate,
I made into an illegal organization, with dues, secrecy, and other
necessary conditions, and I appointed people who were willing and
suitable to get into important Party positions.

Q. When and how did you meet the defendant Wolfram Sievers ?

A. As far as I can recall, I met Sievers about 1929, on one of
my historical-philosophical lecture trips. He was a Boy Scout at
that time. He spoke up during the discussion and we took a liking
to each other.

Q. Did Sievers show at that time that he was opposed to the
NSDAP?

A. That was a matter of course with the people with whom I
had anything to do at all.

Q. And did you consider him suitable to work in your circle?

A. Yes.

Q. In 1929 Sievers joined the NSDAP. Was that done with your
knowledge ?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you advise him to do so or how did it come about ? There
had to be some special reason, since you were both opponents of
this political party.

A. That was the first time, aside from 1923, when the NSDAP
was talked about, and it was useful to know what was going on
in this growing machine — were there any people of good will
within the machine, what were the leaders doing, what plans were
being made, what organization was being set up.

Q. Then first of all you wanted to find out what intentions the
NSDAP had ?

A. Yes, and specifically in the youth work, because that had to
be the most important in the long run.

Q. Now, in 1931 Sievers resigned from the NSDAP again; did
he do that with your knowledge ?

A. Yes.

Q. On your orders?

A. Yes, one might say that. We discussed it, and I considered
it the thing to do.

Q. Now, why should he suddenly leave the Party since he had
been sent into the Party with the definite purpose of getting in-
formation ?

A. He had found out what he was to find out, the nature and
the make-up, especially of the youth organization. It was just as
inferior as we had thought, and even at that time it was so cor-
rupt that without any further plan — and we had no plan at the
time — without any further plan it was not necessary to have him
continue.

Q. Now, in the year 1933, Sievers, as the Tribunal has already
been told, again joined the NSDAP; was this also done on your
behalf?

A. Yes. At that time we were already a thoroughly organized
organization. We were already asking for volunteers, who were
willing and who were capable of working up in the sense of the
Trojan Horse. Sievers seemed suitable, and he was willing.

Q. Were you able to get him any position within the Party?

A. No. I was not able to help him to obtain any position, and
in the second place I had no intention of telling the individual
persons whom I trusted, in detail, what they were to do.

Q. Then it was up to the skill of the individual to get into a
position from which he would be able to carry out the assignment
which you gave him?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did Sievers obtain this position?

A. He got into this with Hermann Wirth in the Ahnenerbe.

Q. Who was Hermann Wirth?

A. Hermann Wirth was a rather crazy student of pre-history,
who had excellent material and terrible concepts.

Q. Was Wirth already in contact with the Ahnenerbe at that
time?

A. As far as I know he was one of the founders.

Q. Then, as you say, Sievers got in contact with Wirth, and
through Wirth he got into the Ahnenerbe?

A. Yes. He was there from 1935 on as Reich Business Manager.

Q. Now, did you give Sievers any specific assignment in the
spirit of your movement?

A. As soon as it was clear that there was a possibility of
exploiting Himmler’s racial romancing and half-education, the
assignment developed to gain Himmler’s confidence with the
aid of the Ahnenerbe and to get as close to him as possible.
We, that is my group, were among the people who very early
recognized the special personal danger of Himmler, and in the
second place from the beginning we had been determined that
one day we would have to overthrow the Party regime by force,
and for that purpose one has to get as close as possible to the
most dangerous man.

Q. And what were the duties which Sievers had this time?
When he first belonged to the NSDAP, you said he was to get
information about the intentions of the youth movement of
the NSDAP.

A. This time, of course, he had to get as many details as he
could from the office of the Reich Leader SS, and transmit them
to us. We had to protect people. We had to build up camouflage
positions. We had to help the other people and in turn to remain
unrecognized.

Q. And how did Sievers carry out these duties?

A. Well, it will be best if I begin with myself. I myself was
known and considered undesirable by the Party leadership.

Q. You mean the NSDAP?

A. Well, yes, of course. The Party leaders knew me and con-
sidered me undesirable. I had already been under arrest and
had had my house searched. I was watched by the Gestapo, and
in order to build up my organization I needed to be able to
travel anywhere without arousing suspicion. Consequently,
Sievers gave me a fake research assignment, which was to study
Indo-Germanic culture, customs of the annual festivals.

Q. Sievers said during direct examination that he himself
could not issue any research assignments; you said that you re-
ceived a fake research assignment from him; wasn’t this re-
search assignment actually issued by the curator, Professor
Wuest?

A. Yes. If things were going well, and Wuest was in a good
mood, or had been drinking with Sievers, it was possible to
persuade him to do something, and so he succeeded in persuading
Wuest that I was efficient for this research assignment, and so
I was given this assignment. And what concerned Indo-Germanic
customs could be found anywhere. I was given a false pass as a
section chief, though I was not a section chief, and was not a
member of the SS nor the Ahnenerbe.

Q. And with this pass you were able easily to get visas to go
abroad ?

A. Not necessarily. I needed a little more for that purpose, but
it was easier.

Q. Then the actual purpose of this fake research assignment
was that you, who were a suspect, might appear in a more
harmless light and would be able to move rather freely and
without supervision?

A. Yes.

# * * 5{C #

Q. What did Sievers do in order to further the activities of
your organization?

A. For instance, he took care of supplying all information
which was of importance. He told us what troops of the Waffen
SS were in Germany during the war. He gave us fake official trips
and he worked out a plan for an assassination, which was to be
carried through by our group in case the generals' plan did not
come off. We all thought it was not safe to rely on the generals.
In March 1944, Werner Haften told me by order of Stauffenberg
that one would have to take into account the fact that the generals
would have to be moved into action by a certain assassination
and everyone was to make his own preparations, in case he had
any, in such a manner as if he was the only one active. That was
the situation in March 1944. We worked out a substantial plan
to remove, if possible, Himmler and Hitler simultaneously, but
in case of doubt Himmler himself. We were of a completely
different opinion there than the other groups.

Q. What concrete preliminary work was done for the assassi-
nation in your group?

A. Sievers was the only one in our group who came into
question regarding that assassination because he was the only
one so close to Himmler. He was therefore assigned this task
and we worked out this matter as far as the detailed plan was
concerned; all that was necessary now was to press the button.

Q. And for what period of time was this assassination in-
tended?

A. We started our preparations in the year 1943, and we could
have started at the earliest at the end of 1943. Then we finally
thought of the middle of 1944 because Schulenburg and Luening
told me that the generals would be ready around that time.

Q. Well, an assassination is a matter for quick decision. Is it
not true, therefore, that all these long preparations that you are
telling us about are rather surprising?

A. The following would have to be taken into consideration:
Around Himmler and Hitler there was a strong guard, a strong
ring of guards, through which none could get unless he was care-
fully searched and checked. Secondly, and that I already em-
phasized, one did not have to be quite sure that the generals
would carry out that assassination, but one had to be sure that
a sufficient number of generals were ready to remove the
National Socialist system immediately after the assassination, for
the elimination of just these two people would have no political
purpose whatsoever. We did not intend to carry out a Putsch
but we intended to remove a political system, a political order,
and for that reason we had to wait until the situation became
right and the generals were ready.

Q. Now, the question crops up whether these plans for the as-
sassination of Hitler and Himmler were only in your fantasy, or
the fantasy of your collaborators, or was there any real basis
or concrete preparation for such assassination?

A. I already said that the preparations had been worked out
in the detailed technical points insofar as the location, the shoot-
ing, etc., were concerned.

Q. And who would have assassinated Himmler and Hitler ?

A. Sievers was to do that and a few young men belonging to
my organization.

Q. And why was it in effect not carried out?

A. After the Stauffenberg assassination had failed, the Wehr-
macht circles that came into question were eliminated by Himmler
and therefore it was no longer possible to remove that system.
The only consequence of any attempted assassination would have
been — since the foreign political situation would not have changed
— that the people would have said again, “This is the stab in
the back for the victorious front line. ,,

Q. What did Sievers do to further your activity in addition
to what you have already said?

A. He, for instance, supported my representative, Arnold
Deutelmoser, when he was put on the list of those who were
to be removed under the pretext of the assassination which took
place in Munich at the Buergerbraeu. He also protected Bomas
who was working in the Netherlands. He protected Dr. Schuet-

telkopf whom we had sent into the RSHA and it was possible
for him in turn to send me to Sweden. He saved Niels Bor,
Professor Seyb of Oslo University, and he saved a number of
Norwegian students, etc.

Q. Do you know that Sievers informed you about Himmler’s
double play in the case of the minister Popitz, and that as a
consequence he saved that entire group against measures by
Himmler ?

A. Yes. The following thing happened. One day Sievers ap-
proached me and said that he had just heard Himmler ridicule
in a close circle an attempt on the part of Popitz. He said that
Minister Popitz with the mediation of the lawyer Lampe had
approached Himmler and tried to persuade him to bring about
a change of the National Socialist system, perhaps by removing
Hitler. He said Himmler thought it was very funny that these
men had so little sense as to think of him in that connection.
Thank God one could enter negotiations with them because cer-
tainly nobody in the country was behind these people, but it did
seem that these gentlemen had many foreign political relation-
ships and it would be advisable to find out what in effect was
behind it all and to enter into negotiations with them. We were
quite surprised about the naive attitude shown by Himmler, and
I sent Deutelmoser to Reichwein whom I knew had connections
with Popitz. In that way Popitz was warned. Reichwein was
so surprised and hardly wanted to believe the situation.

I was asked to participate in a conference, and Reichwein
after having convinced himself that all of this was true promised
to warn all of the gentlemen concerned in Berlin and then asked
Deutelmoser, who was to go to Norway shortly thereafter to
notify Reichwein’s friend, Stelzer, the present Minister Presi-
dent of Schleswig-Holstein, in order to see that he, too, took
the necessary precautionary measures. In this way we hoped
that a number of these people had actually been saved. Popitz,
however, himself was careless and was captured.

Q. This conspiracy could not have been carried out unless you
had the necessary financial means at your disposal. How did you
get these means?

A. Everyone of our people, be it man or woman, had agreed
to give up ten percent of their monthly income for that illegal
work. Many gave a substantially larger sum.

Q. How about Sievers?

A. Sievers gave more than he had to.

Q. Do you know the case of the three hundred Norwegian
students who on the basis of Sievers’ intervention were released
from the concentration camp Buchenwald?

A. Yes. Terboven, or some other official in Norway, disliked
some demonstration which occurred there, and as a result ar-
rested three hundred students. Through some dark channels they
were brought into the concentration camp at Buchenwald. Sievers
found out about that, and if I remember correctly, he was in a
position to see to it that these students were released from the
concentration camp, making use of Himmler’s Nordic ideas to
this end.

Q. In that case you think that Sievers’ activity was sub-
stantially important for your resistance movement?

A. Yes. That was true of my organization, for he protected
and covered me as its chief, and, secondly, as far as I know,
he was the only man belonging to any resistance movement who
was as close as he to the Reich Leader SS. If any other group
had brought any such information as he did, I would have noticed
that it could have only come from the same source.

Q. Witness, I shall have a document handed to you which
was submitted by the prosecution. This is Document NO-975,
Prosecution Exhibit 479. It is a letter sent by Sievers to Dr.
Hirt. Would you please look at that letter?

A. Yes.

Q. This letter contains a tone of voice which seems to indicate
that he tried to cover Dr. Hirt’s activity. Dr. Hirt was working
in the Anatomical Institute of the Strasbourg University. I as-
sume, for reasons which we shall mention later, that you know
Hirt’s name. How do you explain that tone in this letter?

A. I think that this is very proper and praiseworthy. I would
have thought it very foolish of Sievers if he adopted any other
tone in any of his official correspondence. It was his task to say
“yes” but act in a negative way. There couldn’t have appeared
any pretense of any disapproval on his part. The more active
one had to be in an anti-National Socialist way, the more one
had to speak in favor of National Socialism.

Q. I shall now turn to another complex of questions. Sievers is
indicted in this trial as having participated in a number of
crimes. Did Sievers at any time tell you about the so-called re-
search assignments of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Hirt who was just
mentioned? These were experiments carried out in the concen-
tration camps.

A. Sievers, as far as I remember, came to me in the year 1942
and told me very excitedly that Himmler in his desire to extend
the Ahnenerbe Society had embarked on the thought of includ-
ing experiments on human beings in the work of the Ahnenerbe
Society. He said that he did not succeed in frustrating that. He
said that he had no desire whatsoever to participate in these

horrible acts and asked me what to do. At that time we con-
sidered this horrible situation very thoroughly and thought of
what we could do. It was quite clear to us what the SS intended
here, and it was questionable whether responsibility could be
assumed for any such acts, whether it would be advisable to be
the instrument of Himmler if he embarked on any such acts,
measures where human beings were degraded to the level of
insects.

The following considerations proved to be decisive for us:
If Sievers left, not one person, not one subject in these experi-
ments would be saved. If Sievers stayed there as a technical
secretary, he could throw sand into that machinery and would,
perhaps, be in a position to save somebody. In addition, the entire
plan and the entire overthrow of the Party stood or fell with
Sievers staying at his post. The experiments on human beings
were only part of this horrible Party system, and one had to
concentrate on the decisive points in order finally to remove
everything, and, as I have said before, there was no other way
into the staff of the Reich Leader SS. We therefore concluded
that if Sievers resigned because of that, it was sure that he would
be eliminated and probably all the people he had ever entrusted
with a research assignment, and everything that we had done
so far would be lost if he left, and if anyone was to be saved
at all, he could only be saved by Sievers remaining at his post.

Q. If I have understood you correctly, Sievers at first wanted
to resign from his position as Reich Business Manager of the
Ahnenerbe ?

A. Yes. That is correct.

Q. Did Sievers approve of these arguments which you and your
friends put forward in favor of his staying with the Reich
Leader SS as the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe?
Did he do it immediately or only after trying to persuade him
for some time?

A. This took a number of days, because Sievers, according
to his nature, was softer than many of us and did not want to
agree with us. We finally had to appeal to his sense of duty
and persuade him that he had to do it and that it was the
only way.

Q. Among other matters, it was considered that by Sievers re-
maining at his post, there would be a possibility of mitigating
these horrible experiments?

A. The chance wasn’t very great but we were convinced that
this would be the only way possible, if at all. Then it could
only be done in that manner. If I may say so, this was such a
horrible situation that we always had to come back to it and we

were very lucky at least to have the hope of saving a number
of people. Other opponents of the SS system have told me about
similar dilemmas which were just as difficult, and where the
alternative was yet more horrible, and where persons, accord-
ing to my belief and knowledge, acted correctly. If the Tribunal
would permit me I could relate a few almost incredible situations
which were even worse.

Presiding Judge Beals: In what connection are these narra-
tions, Witness?

Witness Hielscher: In connection with the question as to
whether it was morally justifiable to enable Sievers to remain at
his post.

Presiding Judge Beals: Such matters as that would not be
material in this inquiry.

5{C

CROSS-EX AMIN A TION

5jC j}C 5jt

Mr. Hardy: Now, what did Sievers ever tell you about the
Sievers-Hirt skeleton collection? Did he ever tell you about that?

Witness Hielscher: Yes. He told me that Himmler had or-
dered — as far as I know, it was in connection with Jewish com-
missars who were under this terrible execution order which was
valid in the East — that some of them were to be selected and used
for the skeleton collection. The order was from Himmler, as
Sievers reported to me.

Q. And did you know what they were going to do with these
people ?

A. Yes. It was the same as in the experiments. There a danger
of death was a possibility; here it was certain.

Q. You knew, of course, that they were going to stand these
people up, pick them out, select them according to size, take
their anatomical measurements, then ship them to Natzweiler
and at Natzweiler kill them, then deflesh them, then send the
skeletons to the Strasbourg University for collection? And you
knew that?

A. Yes.

Q. A fine thing for a resistance man to be involved in, isn't it?

A. The situation, as I have said repeatedly, was as follows:
We made no distinction in the real evaluation of the skeleton
collection and other experiments in which there was this so-
called “volunteering" and in which the result was the same — in
our eyes, they were the same thing. I should like to emphasize

one more thing. Does one have the moral right to tolerate a lesser
evil in order to prevent a greater evil?

Q. Just a moment. Now in connection with the skeleton col-
lection, do you further know that they dispensed with the idea
of taking Jewish commissars but selected Jewish inmates of con-
centration camps?

A. Yes. What particular persons were selected I do not know,
of course, but I knew that a number of Jews were to be gassed
and were selected for this anthropological collection. That was
the same case as in the Ghetto of Lodz. The Jewish commander
of the Ghetto — that was Lieutenant Rosenblatt — after he had
gained confidence in me because I had gone in with a false pass,
said personally to me: “I was picked out by the SS. When a new
group of Jews comes into this Ghetto of Lodz and crowds the
Ghetto, I have to select exactly the same number of Jews and
I know that they will be gassed. That is, I was selected by the SS
to determine who is to be gassed. Now, I ask you in the name of
God, Mr. Hielscher, you are a Christian, what am I to do? I had
nothing to do with that. I have asked the Rabbis. I have asked
the old people themselves, and we have come to the conclusion
that I must stay in this office. At least I can determine the persons
— I can at least select the oldest people who can’t stand life in a
ghetto and perhaps, in this way, perhaps I will be able to save the
life of one person. These two old people that I am telling you about
were about seventy years old. There were five Christians among
the Jews. At least I was able to see that these two old people
were gassed together. They asked me to tell their daughter that
we were able to achieve at least that. Tell me, did I do right or
not?” That is still more horrible because the man could not even
reduce the number. I was ashamed that the people who were in
charge of this camp were called Germans. But I said: “You have
acted right and you are justified in the eyes of God.”

Q. Now, Dr. Hielscher, I assume that the defense counsel has
shown you all the documents concerning the skeleton collection.
Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. There won’t be any need for me to go over them. You have
stated in connection with the one document that was presented
to you today on the stand that this was a very praiseworthy act
on the part of Sievers in a negative way. Since you are familiar
with all the skeleton collection documents — I had intended to go
into each one but I will just go into that one. That is Document
NO-088, Prosecution Exhibit 182. This is a document which was
written by Sievers. You will see that his signature appears thereon.
Do you recognize the signature at the bottom of the letter?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, Sievers here is proposing a way in which they can
destroy the skeleton collection so that it will not be known to any
one — that is, to the Allies when they overrun Strasbourg. And
you will notice, two-thirds of the way through, the one paragraph
that states : “The viscera could be declared as remnants of corpses
apparently left in the anatomical institute by the French.” You
see that?

A. Yes.

Q. “In order to be cremated.” Now this is an idea of one
Wolfram Sievers, wherein he is suggesting that these, or the
results of these criminal activities be left so that they may, by
the Allies, be blamed on to the French, and bearing in mind, of
course that the French, as well as the United States, Great Britain,
and other Allies were equally as interested as the resistance move-
ments in defeating the Nazi regime, were they not?

A. I have already said that it was Sievers’ duty to say “yes”
and to act negatively, but, of course, I did not praise this action,
but I praised the vocabulary, the formulation. He spoke like a
Nazi. The concrete question in such a case was simply as follows:
Can anyone be saved here or not? If no one can be saved, what
can I do to keep up the appearance of a Nazi since I know that
Obersturmbannfuehrer Neuhaus suspects that I have some con-
tact with the resistance movement? Sievers, since the 20th of
July, or rather since my arrest, was constantly seeing to it that
his actions looked like Nazi actions, insofar as no one was actually
killed ; that was part of his duty, part of the mask without which
the organization could not operate.

Q. Yes. But from this letter does it not suggest that he was
willing to allow an innocent Frenchman to answer for the crimes
which flowed out of this skeleton collection activity?

A. If you show me —

Q. I have asked you — does it not appear from this letter, this
letter signed by Sievers, that he was willing to allow a Frenchman
to suffer for the crimes committed during the course of the col-
lection of these skeletons?

A. Yes. The letter quite deliberately, I believe, creates this im-
pression. That was the purpose of it, like all such letters.

* * * * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS

DR. ANDREW C. IVY*

CROSS-EX AMIN A TION

rji ^ ^ rj>

Dr. Servatius: Witness, take the following case. You are in
a city in which the plague is raging. You, as a doctor, have a drug
that you could use to combat the plague. However, you must test
it on somebody. The commander, or let us say the mayor of the
city, comes to you and says, “Here is a criminal condemned to
death. Save us by carrying out the experiment on this man.”
Would you refuse to do so, or would you do it?

Witness Dr. Ivy: I would refuse to do so, because I do not
believe that duress of that sort warrants the breaking of ethical
and moral principles. That is why the Hague Convention and
Geneva Convention were formulated, to make war, a barbaric
enterprise, a little more humane.

Q. Do you believe that the population of a city would have any
understanding for your action?

A. They have understanding for the importance of the main-
tenance of the principles of medical ethics which apply over a
long period of years, rather than a short period of years. Phy-
sicians and medical scientists should do nothing with the idea of
temporarily doing good which, when carried out repeatedly over a
period of time, would debase and jeopardize a method for doing
good. If a medical scientist breaks the code of medical ethics and
says, “Kill the person,” in order to do what he thinks may be good,
in the course of time that will grow and will cause a loss of faith
of the public in the medical profession, and hence destroy the
capacity of the medical profession to do its good for society. The
reason that we must be very careful in the use of human beings
as subjects in medical experiments is in order not to debase and
jeopardize this method for doing great good by causing the pub-
lic to react against it.

Q. Witness, do you not believe that your ideal attitude here
is more or less that of a single person standing against the body
of public opinion?

A. No I do not. That is why I read out the principles of med-
ical ethics yesterday, and that is why the American Medical Asso-
ciation has agreed essentially to those principles. That is why the
principles, the ethical principles for the use of human beings in
medical experiments, have been quite uniform throughout the
world in the past.

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14 June 1947, pp.
9029-9324.

Q. Then you do not believe that the urgency, the necessity of
this city would make a revision of this attitude necessary?

A. No, not if they were in danger of killing people in the course
of testing out the new drug or remedy. There is no justification
in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred.

Q. Then you are of the opinion that the life of the one pris-
oner must be preserved even if the whole city perishes?

A. In order to maintain intact the method of doing good, yes.

Q. From the point of view of the politician, do you consider
it good if he allows the city to perish in the interests of preserving
this principle and preserving the life of the one prisoner?

A. The politician, unless he knows medicine and medical ethics,
has no reason to make a decision on that point.

Q. But as a politician he must make a decision about what is
to happen. Shall he coerce the doctor to carry out the experiment,
or shall he protect the doctor from the rage of the multitude ?

A. You can’t answer that question. I should say this, that there
is no state or no politician under the sun that could force me to
perform a medical experiment which I thought was morally un-
justified.

Q. You then, despite the order, would not carry out the order,
and would prefer to be executed as a martyr?

A. That is correct, and I know there are thousands of people
in the United States who would have to do likewise.

Q. And do you not also believe that in thousands of cities the
population would kill the doctor who found himself in that posi-
tion?

A. I do not believe so because they would not know. How would
they know whether the doctor had a drug that would or would
not relieve ? The doctor would not know himself, because he would
have to experiment first.

Q. Witness, I put a hypothetical case to you. If we are to turn
to reality other questions would arise. I simply want to hear now
your general attitude to this problem. You are then of the opinion
that a doctor should not carry out the order. Are you also of the
opinion that the politician should not give such an order?

A. Yes. I believe he should not give such an order.

Q. Is this not a purely political decision which must be left at
the discretion of the political leader?

A. Not necessarily. He should seek the best advice that he can
obtain.

Q. If he is informed that this one experiment on this one pris-
oner would save the whole city, he may give the order despite the
fact that the doctor does not wish to carry it out, is that what
you think?

841584 — 49—4

A. He could then give the order, but if the doctor still believed
that it was contrary to his moral responsibilities, then the doctor
should not carry out the order.

Q. That is another question, whether or not he carries it out,
but in such cases you consider it is permissible to give that order,
is that what I understood you to say?

A. After he has obtained the best advice on the subject which
he can obtain.

Q. Then he can give the order. Yes or no?

A. Yes.

G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute

for Penalties

a. Introduction

Several of the defendants argued that medical experiments,
alleged as criminal, upon concentration camp inmates were justi-
fied because they were a substitute for penalty or punishment
previously imposed on the experimental subjects. Counsel for the
defendant Gebhardt argued that the experimentation amounted
to a complete pardon as sentences of death had been imposed and
hence that the experimentation, not always deadly, saved human
lives. The prosecution’s argument on this point is illustrated by an
extract from the closing statement, set forth on pages 44 to 49.
On this general question, selections have been taken from the
closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final
plea of the defendant Gebhardt. These appear below on pages
49 to 56. The following selections from the evidence appear
in pages 56 to 61: extract from the direct examination of the
defendant Mrugowsky; cross-examination of the prosecution’s ex-
pert witness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE

PROSECUTION *

*******

Another of the rather common defenses urged by the defend-
ants is that the experimental subjects were criminals condemned
to death who, provided they survived the experiment, were re-

* Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 47, pp. 10718-10796.

warded by commutation of their sentence to life imprisonment in
a concentration camp. For one who has even the slightest knowl-
edge of the conditions in concentration camps and the life ex-
pectancy of an average inmate, this alleged defense assumes the
aspect of a ghastly joke. We need only recall the remark made
by one of the women used by Rascher to reward his frozen victims
in Dachau, who when asked by him why she had volunteered for
the camp brothel, replied: “rather half a year in a brothel than
half a year in a concentration camp.” But the defects in this
spurious defense run much deeper. Concentration camps were not
ordinary penal institutions, such as are known in other countries,
for the commitment of persons convicted of crimes by courts. The
very purpose of concentration camps was the oppression and per-
secution of persons who were considered undesirable by the Nazi
regime on racial, political, and religious grounds. Hundreds of
thousands of victims were confined to concentration camps be-
cause they were simply Jews, Slavs, or gypsies, Free Masons,
Social Democrats, or Communists. They were not tried for any
offense and sentenced by a court, not even a Nazi court. They
were imprisoned on the basis of “protective custody orders” issued
by the RSHA. Tens of thousands were condemned to death on the
single order of Himmler, who, as Gebhardt put it so well, “had
the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of his pen.”
(Tr. p. 4025.) There were, indeed, a relatively small group of
inmates who might be classed as ordinary criminals. These were
men who had served out their sentences in an ordinary prison and
then were committed to concentration camps for still further de-
tention. A memorandum of 18 September 1942 by Thierack, the
Minister of Justice, concerning a conversation with Himmler, tells
us the fate of those unfortunates :

“The delivery of anti-social elements from the execution of
their sentence to the Reich Leader SS to be worked to death.
Persons under protective arrest, Jews, gypsies, Russians and
Ukrainians, Poles with more than 8-year sentences, Czechs and
Germans with more than 8-year sentences, according to the
decision of the Reich Minister for Justice.” (654-PS, Pros.
Ex. 562.)

The proof in this case has demonstrated beyond all doubt that
so-called criminals sentenced to death were very rarely used in
any of the experiments. True it is that Himmler said prisoners
condemned to death should be used in those high-altitude experi-
ments where the long-continued activity of the heart after death
was observed by the experimenters. He was generous enough to
say that if such persons could be brought back to life, then they
were to be “pardoned” to concentration camp for life. But even

this unique amnesty had no application to Russians and Poles,
who were used exclusively in those experiments.

But, assuming for the moment, that this alleged defense might
have a mitigating effect under some circumstances, it certainly
has no application to this case. Be it noted that this is an affirma-
tive defense by way of avoidance or mitigation. There has been
no proof whatever that criminals sentenced to death by an ordi-
nary court could possibly be executed in a concentration camp.
Such matters were within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Justice, not Himmler and the SS. The experimental subjects we
are dealing with are those that Himmler could condemn by a
“stroke of his pen.” If the inmate used in the experiments was
condemned for merely being a Jew, Pole, or Russian, or, for ex-
ample, having had sexual intercourse with a Jew, it does not
answer the criminal charge to say that the victim was doomed to
die. Experimentation on such a person is to compound the crime
of his initial unlawful detention as well as to commit the addi-
tional crime of murder or torture. As has been said by another
tribunal, “Exculpation from the charge of criminal homicide can
possibly be based only upon bona fide proof that the subject had
committed murder or any other legally recognized capital offense ;
and, not even then, unless the sentencing tribunal with authority
granted by the state in the constitution of the court declared that
the execution would be accomplished by means of a low-pressure
chamber.” *

In this connection, it might be noted that German law recog-
nized only three methods of execution, namely, by decapitation,
hanging, and shooting. (German Penal Code, Part I, Section 13;
Reicksgesetzblatt [ Reich Law Gazette'], 1933, Part 1, p. 151;
Reichsgesetzblatt 1939, Part I, p. 1U57.) Moreover, there is no
proof that any of the experimental subjects had their death sen-
tence commuted to any lesser degree of punishment. Indeed, in
the sulfanilamide crimes it was the experiment plus later execu-
tion for at least six of the subjects.

Since the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser have
put particular stress on this alleged defense, I should like to make
a few remarks in that connection, but it should be remembered
that they apply with equal force to most of the other defendants.
Gebhardt, speaking for his co-defendants Fischer and Oberheuser,
took the position that the Polish women who had been used in the
sulfanilamide experiments had been condemned to death for partic-
ipation in a resistance movement and that by undergoing the
experiments voluntarily or otherwise, they were to have their

* United States vs. Erhard Milch. Concurring Opinion of Judge Musmanno, vol. II, sec.
VII, B.

death sentences commuted to some lesser degree of punishment,
provided they survived the experiments. This was no bargain
reached with the experimental subjects; their wishes were not
consulted in the matter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to
the good faith of someone unnamed to see to it that the death
sentences were not carried out on the survivors of the experi-
ments. Certainly Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser assumed no
responsibility or even interest in that regard.

It should be pointed out that the proof shows that the ex-
perimental subjects who testified before this Tribunal were never
so much as afforded trial; they had no opportunity to defend
themselves against whatever crimes they were said to have com-
mitted. They were simply arrested and interrogated by the
Gestapo in Poland and sent to the concentration camp. They had
never so much as been informed that they had been marked for ,
not sentenced to, death. Article 30 of the Regulations Respecting
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague
Convention, specifically provides that even a spy “shall not be
punished without previous trial”.

Gebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that but for the
experiments all these Polish girls would be dead; that he pre-
served the evidence which was used against him. Nothing could
be further from the truth. There is no proof in the record that
these women would have been executed if they had not undergone
the experiments. The witness Maczka is living proof of the con-
trary. She was arrested for resistance activities on 11 September
1941 and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13 September. She was not
an experimental subject yet she lives today. Substantially all of
the Polish experimental subjects arrived in Ravensbrueck in Sep-
tember 1941. These girls had not been executed by August 1942
when the experiments began. There were some 700 Polish girls
in that transport. There is no evidence that a substantial number
were ever executed even though most of them were not experi-
mented on.

The proof submitted by the prosecution has shown beyond
controversy that these Polish women could not have been legally
executed. The right to grant pardons in cases of death sentences
was exclusively vested in Hitler by a decree of 1 February 1935.
On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated the right to make negative deci-
sions on pardon applications to the Reich Minister of Justice.
On 30 January 1940, Hitler delegated to the Governor General
for the occupied Polish territories the authority to grant and deny
pardons for the occupied Polish territories. By edict dated 8 March
1940, the Governor General of occupied Poland ordered that —

“The execution of a death sentence promulgated by a regular

court, a special court, or a police court martial, shall take
place only when my decision has been issued not to make use
of my right to pardon.” (NO-3073, Pros. Ex. 534.)

Thus, even though we assume arguendo, that the experimental
subjects had all committed substantial crimes, that they were all
properly tried by a duly constituted court of law, and that they
were legally sentenced to death, it is still clear from these decrees
that these women could not have been legally executed until such
time as the Governor General of occupied Poland had decided in
each case not to make use of his pardon right. There has been no
proof that the Governor General ever acted with respect to par-
doning the Polish women used in the experiments, or, for that
matter, any substantial number of those not used in the experi-
ments. The only reason these 700 Polish women were transported
from Warsaw and Lublin to Ravensbrueck, in the first place, was
because the Governor General had not approved their execution.
Otherwise they would have been immediately executed in Poland.
At the very least, these women were entitled to remain unmolested
so long as the Governor General took no action. He may never
have acted or, when he did, he may have acted favorably on the
pardon. Who is to say that the majority of these 700 women did
not live through the war even though they did not undergo the
experiments ? Certainly it was incumbent on the defense to prove
the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This it did not
do by any evidence.

The defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser certainly
cannot claim that they believed in good faith that the Polish
women could have been legally executed. Even the camp doctor,
Schiedlausky, knew that the Governor General had to approve
each execution. Moreover, the large number of 700 women being
sentenced to death at this early stage of the war was enough to
put any reasonable person on notice that something was wrong.

Additionally, the uncontroverted evidence proves that survival
of the experiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execu-
tion in any event. At least six of the experimental subjects were
proved to have been executed after having survived the experi-
ments. It was not a question of the experiment or execution but
rather the experiments and execution. Indeed, in February 1945,
an effort was made to execute all of the experimental subjects but,
because of confusion in the camp due to the war situation, the
experimental subjects were able to obtain different identification
numbers and so avoid detection.

But even if one takes the case of the defense at its face value,
the Tribunal is in effect asked to rule that it is legal for military

doctors of a nation at war to experiment on political prisoners of
an occupied country who are condemned to death, to experiment
on them in such a way that they may suffer death, excrutiating
pain, mutilation, and permanent disability, all this without their
consent and in direct aid of the military potential of their enemy.
There would, of course, be no valid reason for limiting such a deci-
sion to civilian prisoners; the experiments would certainly have
been no worse had they been performed on Polish or American
prisoners of war. It is impossible to consider seriously this ghoulish
ruling being sought for by the defense.

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT

KARL BRANDT

* * * * * * *
The Medical Experiments as Substitute for Penalty *

The indictment embraces certain medical experiments, which
are called war crimes and crimes against humanity. According
to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the indictment, these experiments
are designated as crimes, as a violation of the general principles
of criminal law as evolved from the penal law of all civilized
nations, as well as violations of the national penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed. An indication
of their punishable character was seen in the fact that the ex-
periments were carried out without the consent of the persons
experimented upon.

We must examine whether this consent of the person subjected
to experiments is always necessary or whether it can be replaced
by an order of the state through the penal administration, and
further, if the same law applies to the execution of sentences on
foreigners. If consent to the human experiment by the person
experimented on can be replaced by an order of the state, then
the person responsible for the experiment cannot be punished
in cases where the experiments were carried out through the
official penal administration in accordance with the order.

No legal regulations regarding the question of admissibility
of medical experiments in civilized countries are knoivn. How-
ever, it is a fact that such experiments have been carried out
to a greater or lesser extent within the memory of man in all
countries and up till now have remained unopposed. But with the

• See also excerpts from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt (Section VIII E,
vol. I, pp. 983-990).

development of medical knowledge and modern methods of re-
search, experiments on human beings have increased considerably.
Today, when research, to solve its problems and meet its chal-
lenges, has advanced into the most widely differentiated spheres,
they are considered absolutely necessary. Accordingly, human
experiments will continue to increase with the progress of science
and the problem that this trial has raised will always be urgent.

Moreover, reference is made to the opinion of the Washington
anatomist, E. V. Cowdry, on the necessity of human experiments
in cancer research {Karl Brandt 50, Karl Brandt Ex. 56) , and the
order for human experiments on the part of the British Military
Government for Professor McCance in Wuppertal. The knowl-
edge of such experiments on human beings was, as literature
shows, at first limited to medical specialist circles and the
official authorities concerned. Only in recent times has the public
been cautiously informed. {Becker-Freyseng 60, Becker-Freyseng
Ex. 58.) Complete instruction of the public is only necessary
so that, in case of an eventual discussion, sound judgment of the
actions of the researcher may be possible.

Reference is also made to the remarkable publication on the
malaria experiment on 800 prisoners in the United States, pub-
lished in the widely circulated periodical “Life” ( Karl Brandt
1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1). The number of the imprisoned persons
to be experimented upon was even more than 2,000, according
to the radio account submitted.

Repeated reports on such experiments have so far been re-
ceived without opposition by specialist circles, the authorities,
and also the general public. From that can be gathered what in
principle is considered permissible and right by competent au-
thorities and the public. The experiments actually carried out
are a mirror of the existing laws and one can by way of legal
sociological investigation find the norms of law that have validity.
This is done where the law is not codified. In the same manner,
the International Military Tribunal has derived the existing
international law on the basis of its phenomena and the same
procedure leads to the determination of the common law. Inas-
much as positive regulations exist in the United States which
are contradictory to the law derived from the phenomena, these
legal regulations must be produced or else the conclusions that
can be drawn from the experiments must be regarded in favor
of the defendant as valid law and an expression of fundamental
principles of punishment.

The defense has in the present situation only very limited
literature at its disposal for the comprehension and explanation
of these legally important facts of the case. However, the little

that is available is already so revealing that one must come to
the conclusion that medical experiments on human beings are
not only admissible on principle, but in addition, that it also does
not violate the basic 'principles of criminal law of civilized nations
to carry out experiments on convicts.

The question today is not whether experiments on human be-
ings may be carried out but only under what circumstances and
how these experiments may be undertaken. Moreover, the prose-
cution itself has declared that human experiments are admissible
on principle.

It is not intended here to go into the experiments which were
made on the healthy and the sick and corpus vile at the time
when modern research was in its infancy and without participa-
tion of government authorities. Insight into those times can be
obtained from the book by the Russian physician Wressajeiv
“Confession of a Physician” (Karl Brandt 48, Karl Brandt Ex.
55), published about 1900. The book reveals some of the experi-
ments that were then known to medical experts and it follows
that the governments did not interfere but in the interest of
medical progress permitted such experiments without trying to
protect the individual as the person experimented upon. The
states then either considered such experiments compatible with
criminal law, or they acquiesced in the camouflaging of the
“voluntariness” of the person experimented upon which was cus-
tomary in consideration of the law. No governmental interven-
tion as the result of such medical experiments is known.

With the development of health administrations, governmental
supervision has been increasingly instituted in all countries and
one can consider all that was admitted in medical experiments
with the consent of the administration and without opposition as
the sediment of the existing law. This is true particularly of recent
times where governmental direction is on the increase.

Particular attention must be given here to the experiments in
state institutes on convicts and those sentenced to death.

* * * * * * *

EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT GEBHARDT *

% * * ❖ * * *
The Agreement by the Experimental Persons as Legal Justification

I shall now deal with the individual reasons for the exclusion of
injustice and guilt, which according to the result of the evidence
preclude the culpability of the defendant's behavior. I am hereby
taking into consideration that the assumption of only one of the
reasons for the exclusion of punishment which we shall now deal
with suffices to justify the defendant’s behavior and to exonerate
him of the offense in the sense of a personal culpability because
of his commission or omission. The individual reasons for the
exclusion of culpability are discussed without taking into consid-
eration whether the examination of any further similar reasons
is superfluous, since the assumption of another reason for the
exclusion of culpability suffices to secure the intended success.
Evidence has proved that the experiments for testing sulfanila-
mides were carried out, to begin with, on fifteen professional male
criminals who had been sentenced to death. Had they survived
the experiments, they would have been granted a pardon therefor.
Considering that this part of the experiment is not a subject of
the indictment, I need not go into detail about it.

To the second and third group (the sulfanilamide experiments)
belonged as experimental subjects members of the Polish Re-
sistance Movement, who, in view of their activity in this illegal
movement, had been sentenced to death by German courts mar-
tial.

It is a principle of German criminal law that in any case the
consent of the offender precludes the illegality of the action. This
principle is not only found in German law but is an established
part of practically all legal systems. Consequently, we have to
examine the question whether the experimental subjects gave
their consent to the experiments. When examining the question
whether legally effective consent had been given, it will not matter
so much whether the experimental subjects expressly declared
their consent. However, if generally acknowledged principles are
applied, one may presume that they expressed their consent in
some obvious manner. It is clear that consent could also have
been given tacitly and by conclusive action.

However, it is true that all the female witnesses examined in
court testified that they did not give their consent to the experi-
ments. The Tribunal, in evaluating these facts, will have to take
into consideration that these witnesses were in a special position

• Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp. 10874-10911.

at that time, as they also are today. It stands to reason that under
these circumstances many things may appear different to them
today from the way they actually happened five years ago. It
might be true that the experimental subjects did not give their
actual consent to these experiments. It might even be true that
they were not asked before the experiments whether they con-
sented to the experiments. Nevertheless this would not exclude
the possibility that, considering their position at that time and
being certain that they could not escape execution in any other
way, they nevertheless did consent to the experiments, however
tacitly. This supposition would coincide with the fact that, for
instance, none of the experimental subjects had ever made any
complaint or mentioned to the defendant Fischer, who had regu-
larly changed the dressings, that they did not consent to the
experiments.

The Presumed Consent of the Experimental Subjects as

Legal Justification

The illegality of an action is excluded not only if the injured
person agreed either actually or tacitly, but if there could have
been a possible consent. These are the cases where the consent
of the injured person could be expected normally, but where for
some reason or another such a consent was actually not given.
Numerous attempts have been made in legal literature and also in
judicial decisions to do justice to this situation which so often
occurs in practice. Not all of these theories need to be discussed
since the decisive points of view have by now been clarified. At
first an attempt was made to settle this question by applying the
law referring to unauthorized acting for and on behalf of another
person. Serious objections were raised against this transfer of
concepts of civil law to criminal law. The criminal idea of consent
is to be extended instead to include so-called supposed consent. I
understand this as an objective judicial judgment based on prob-
abilities, namely, that the person concerned would have given
his consent to the action from his personal point of view if he
had fully known and realized the situation. Wherever such a judg-
ment could be applied, it should have the same effect as the
judicial finding of an actual consent.

However, other courts and scientists base their reason for jus-
tification upon “action for the benefit of the injured person". If
correctly viewed, no actual contradiction to an assumed comment
could be seen therein. On the contrary one may say perhaps
that this could be considered as an independent argument for
justification.

In modern literature and judicial practice, the tendency pre-
vails to combine the two last mentioned viewpoints by demanding
them cumulatively. It is not comprehensible, however, why such
simultaneous existence of two arguments for justification should
be required when each argument in itself is decisive.

A well-known teacher of criminal law in Germany stated the
following conception of this idea: “Should the injured person not
consent, the action in his behalf and for his benefit is to be con-
sidered lawful if his consent could have been expected according
to an objective judgment. The primary justifying argument here
is not that the injured person has waived his right of decision,
but that a positive action was performed for his benefit.”

The practical result, in spite of the theoretical objections raised
against such a combination, could hardly be different. For the
“objective judicial sentence based on probabilities,” here applied
for, which is decisive and upon which the so-called supposed con-
sent would have to be based, will regularly result from an action
that under given circumstances is performed for the “benefit of
the injured person.”

Applying these general principles to the sulfanilamide experi-
ments, there can hardly be any doubt that the experimental
subjects would have agreed if they had been fully aware of their
position. The experimental subjects had already been sentenced
to death and their participation in these experiments was the
only possibility for them to avoid execution. If the Tribunal now
tries to assess the probability that the experimental subjects
would have agreed to submit to those experiments if they had had
full knowledge of the position and the certainty of their eventual
execution, there can in my opinion be very little doubt as to the
result of this examination.

Nor can there be two opinions regarding the question whether,
under circumstances prevailing at that time, the utilization of the
prisoners for these experiments was “in the interest of the
wounded”.

The evidence has shown that the other members of the Polish
Resistance Movement, who were sentenced to death by court mar-
tial and who were in the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck
awaiting the confirmation of the verdict which was given by the
Governor General of the occupied Polish territory, were really
shot only after a complicated and protracted procedure. Their
participation in these medical experiments was the only chance
for them as condemned persons to save their lives. Their partici-
pation in these experiments was not only in their interest but
it also seems to be inconceivable that the prisoners, if they had
been fully aware of their position and had known of the forth-

coming execution, would not have given their consent for the
experiments.

* ***** *

The Defendant's Erroneous Assumption of an Agreement by the

Experimental Subjects

The evidence has shown that the experimental subjects in Camp
Ravensbrueck were not selected by the defendant Karl Gebhardt
nor by any of the other defendants, but that the selection was
made by the competent agency within the Reich Security Main
Office in Berlin or the political department of the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp. During the conference at the beginning of
July 1942, in which the conditions for the experiments were agreed
upon, it was expressly assured that the experimental subjects
were persons sentenced to death who were to be pardoned if they
survived the experiments.

In view of the fact that the defendant Gebhardt did not him-
self select the experimental subjects and that, on the other hand,
no complaints of any kind on the part of the experimental subjects
were ever reported to him, — the defendant Fischer was not in a
position to make any personal observations along these lines either
— we now must examine the question of the legal position of the
defendant Gebhardt if he erroneously assumed the consent of the
experimental subjects.

In criminal law it is a generally recognized principle that there
can be no question of intentional action if there existed an erro-
neous assumption of justificatory facts. This principle can also
be found in Article 59 of the German Penal Code.* But beyond
that, this legal principle may be considered one of the principles
which is generally valid and which is derived from the general
principles of the criminal law of all civilized nations, thus repre-
senting an inherent part of our modern conception of criminal law.
In application of this principle — and even if the Court does not
consider the consent of the experimental subjects as proved and,
therefore, does not provide the prerequisites for a legal excuse
for objective reasons — we still cannot assume an intentional act
on the part of the defendant Gebhardt if he acted under the
“erroneous assumption of consent by the experimental subjects. ,,

♦Art. 59 of the German Penal Code reads:

“If a person in committing an offense did not know of the existence of circum-
stances [Tatumstaende] constituting the factual elements of the offense as determined
by statute [gesetzlicher Tatbestand] or increasing the punishment, then these circum-
stances may not be charged against him.

“In punishing an offense committed through negligence, this provision applies only
insofar as the lack of knowledge does not in itself constitute negligence for which the
offender is responsible.*'

The Erroneous Assumption of Probable Agreement

The same applies if the defendant Gebhardt erroneously as-
sumed a probable consent of the experimental subjects. We do
not mean here an erroneous assumption with regard to the legal
suppositions of such a one, but the erroneous assumption of such
facts, which, had they existed, would have induced the Tribunal
to recognize the “probable consent.” I am referring here to my
argumentation for the legal excuse represented by the “probable
consent,” which I understand as “an objective opinion concerning
the law, based on probability and according to which the person
concerned would have consented to the act from his own personal
standpoint, if he had been fully aware of the circumstances.”
Provided that the defendant Dr. Gebhardt assumed the existence
of such circumstances which seems certain according to the evi-
dence, and even if he did so erroneously, the intent and thus the
crime in this case would also be excluded according to the gen-
erally acknowledged principle.

* * # * * * $

d. Evidence

Testimony

Page

Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 56

Extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. Andrew
C. Ivy 60

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY*
DIRECT EXAMINATION

*******

Dr. Flemming: You know that General Taylor, in his opening
speech, said that this experiment with aconitine had not been
conducted in order to find an antidote to aconitine but in order
to ascertain how long it takes to kill a human being in this manner.
Please tell the Tribunal whether this concerned an experiment.

Defendant Mrugowsky : This was not an experiment in the
actual sense of the word. It was the legal execution of five thieves,
and some special facts were to be ascertained during this execu-
tion. The details were as follows: One day the chemist of the

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, 28, 31 March,
1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 6000-6244, 6334-6464.

Reich Criminal Police Office, Dr. Wittmann, came to me. He asked
me to attend an execution as the official doctor. As the reason for
this request he added that in the General Government in Poland
a high official had been injured when he was attacked with a
revolver; that the bullet had inflicted only a harmless flesh wound,
but nevertheless the person had died after a few hours with
symptoms of poisoning. The person who had attacked him had
been arrested, and the rest of the ammunition was a hollow ball
which contained a crystallized poison. The Chemical Institute of
the Reich Criminal Police Office tested this and found that it was
aconitine. The ammunition was of Russian origin. There is no
aconitine in Germany; it is imported. The question was whether
this was the first case of the beginning of poison warfare against
Germany. We had been expecting such a method of warfare for
some time. For that reason there was not only criminal interest
in clearing up this case but a general interest of the greatest
importance. This ammunition was to be tested on five thieves who
were to be executed anyhow, and it was to be seen whether this
crystallized poison contained another poison which had not been
found in the chemical tests. The remainder of the original Rus-
sian ammunition was to be used, and also German ammunition
which had been made in imitation of the Russian. At the same
time — and this was the main purpose of the experiment — it was
to be discovered how much time would elapse between the injury
and the appearance of the symptoms of poisoning, in order, if
necessary, to be able to use an antidote. This question was of
such great importance because an antidote to aconitine is hardly
known, and if this had actually been the beginning of poison war-
fare, then efforts would have to be made immediately to find an
antidote. Therefore, the head of the Reich Criminal Police Office
asked me, and the Chief of the Criminal Technical Office also
asked me, to participate in the execution myself, although that
was not actually my work; but Dr. Wittmann said he did not
know of any toxicologist except one in Berlin; they had all been
drafted, and as a bacteriologist I had a certain amount of experi-
ence in symptoms of poisoning connected with bacteria and,
therefore, he asked me to take over this job. I was rather unwilling
to do so. I pointed out to Dr. Wittmann that the regular police in
Vienna had a pharmacologist who was very experienced and I
suggested that he should be called upon; but this was not done
because of the poor communications resulting from the air war-
fare. Since, on the other hand, this question was doubtless of great
significance and should not be postponed, I finally declared myself
willing to fulfill this request. In accordance with the purpose of
this job, I made not only the usual report, but a rather more

detailed report on the symptoms of poisoning. There is the report
which we have here in this prosecution document.

Q. You have said that this ammunition which was captured was
of Russian production. How can that be proved?

A. The prosecution itself proved that. To this Document
NO-201, Prosecution Exhibit 290, some files were attached which
were not included in my report. There are three drawings of cross-
sections of these bullets which were made and handed in to the
Institute. The heading is “Poison bullet from a Russian pistol,
calibre 7.65” and details about the construction of this bullet.

Q. You say that this photostatic copy of the drawings of the
bullet was not part of your report. How is that shown? Will
you compare the stamps in the diary ?

A. The report which I handed in is dated 12 September 1944,
and then the next day it was received by the Criminal Technical
Office, and the receipt stamp carried the number “Secret 58”.
The drawings, however, have a different secret journal number,
that is, 15-1944. If the number G-53 was in September then, if
the distribution of letters received is assumed to be even through-
out the year, I should assume that the Reich Criminal Police
Office received these drawings in March of the same year. At that
time I did not know anything about this attack, and the experi-
ment had not been started yet. Nor did I know any details about
the possibility of such poison warfare.

Q. Who was present at the execution?

A. Dr. Ding, who happened to be in Berlin and whom I took
with me in order to support my observations; it was he who con-
ducted the actual medical examination. I, myself, merely ascer-
tained the occurrence of death. Also Dr. Wittmann, representing
the Criminal Technical Institute; also a representative of the
camp commandant, I believe the adjutant; and an Untersturm-
fuehrer who performed the execution, that is, actually shot the
people. It is possible that there were others whom I do not re-
member and whose names I do not know.

Q. Did you investigate in any way who these people were who
were executed, and by what court they had been condemned to
death ?

A. I talked with the people; they understood German; they
were apparently Germans. I considered them ethnic Germans
[Volksdeutsche] of whom we had large numbers in Germany at
that time. On the other hand, I knew that in concentration camps
executions were carried out, and I had been told that this was
an official matter and that there had to be an official representa-
tive of the camp commandant present. The fact that such a rep-
resentative was present at this execution was sufficient for me

to assume that the matter actually was official and, on the other
hand, I had no opportunity to be informed of the sentence or
anything like that.

Q. Then you did not see the death sentence order before it was
carried out?

A. No. I did not have the opportunity because the doctor is
merely called in to an execution to ascertain when death occurs,
but I am convinced that it was not my duty to examine the sen-
tence order, for I had nothing to do with the actual execution.
The order was given by the representative of the camp com-
mandant; someone who was attached to the commandant’s office
actually shot the people, and I was merely there to ascertain
when death occurred and to note the symptoms of poisoning, but
Dr. Ding did the latter for me. The official information from a
high authority was sufficient proof to me for the legality of the
execution.

Q. In the case of two of the five thieves, the poison had no
effect. You saw the suffering of the other three from the poison ;
why did you not shorten this suffering?

A. The sight of this execution was one of the most horrible
experiences of my life. On the other hand, I could not shorten
the symptoms for in the first place there was no antidote against
aconitine available. If it is in the circulation, then there is no
possibility of removing it. In the second place, it was the express
purpose to find out how long the symptoms of poisoning last in
order in later cases to be able to use an antidote, which it was
hoped would soon be discovered.

Q. Did you know that executions in Germany can only be
carried out by shooting, by hanging, or by beheading, and did
you not have any misgivings when this execution was carried
out in a different way?

A. I am not a jurist; I do not know the methods of execution.
On the other hand, I have already said that in my opinion the
state itself has the right to determine the method of death for
its citizens in wartime and doubtless has the right to determine
the method of an execution. Here the suspicion had arisen that
poison war was beginning against Germany. This seemed to be
supported by the finding of poison Russian ammunition. Since
the investigations were carried out by the highest authorities
in the Reich, I had no doubt about the juridicial admissibility
upon which I, as a doctor, had no influence.

Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, were each of these men
struck by more than one bullet or only by one bullet each?

Dependant Mrugowsky: Each one was shot only once in the
thigh; two of these five persons were immediately killed by

841584 — 49—6

another shot, because the first shot of the poison ammunition
had hit the artery in the thigh and their suffering was immediately
stopped; but the others had only flesh wounds and after a certain
period of time, symptoms of poisoning appeared; that was three
people.

Dr. Flemming: Did you have anything else to do with the
previous history of this execution?

Mrugowsky: No.

4# *1? St 4 *

•'P V v

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS

DR. ANDREW C. IVY*

CROSS-EXA MINA TION

4 * 4 * 4 # 4 * 4 / 4 *

•p •p

Dr. Servatius: Mr. President, I should like to ask your per-
mission to put to . the witness a small newspaper notice from
the newspaper “The People” of 3 March 1946. This is an English
newspaper. Regarding the defendants before the IMT, the fol-
lowing was stated: “The opinion of some people is that they
should be condemned very soon.” Then it says: “Others believe
that they should be made to expiate their crimes by helping to
cure cancer, leprosy, and tuberculosis as experimental subjects.”
Is the thought of atonement contained therein?

Witness Dr. Ivy: Yes, but it is expressed in a hysterical
manner.

Q. Yes. I agree with you.

Witness, do you believe that if a person does not volunteer for
an experiment, the state can order such atonement ?

A. No.

Q. Do you not believe that you can expect something of a
prisoner that goes beyond his actual sentence if at the same
time people outside prison are subject to such burdens?

A. No. Those ideas were given up many years ago in the
science and study of penology. The primary objective of penology
today is reformative, not punitive, not expiative.

Q. Witness, is that the recognized theory of penology through-
out the whole world today?

A. It may not be the recognized theory throughout the whole
world today, but it is the prevailing theory in the United States.
There is one other aspect that is quite large and essential, and
that is the protective aspect of imprisonment to protect society
from a habitual criminal.

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14, 16 June 47,
pp. 9029-9324.

Q. Witness, if a soldier at the front is exposed to an epidemic
and can be almost certain that he will catch typhus and deserts
and hides behind the protecting walls of a prison, would you not
consider it justifiable if he is persuaded to volunteer for an
experiment that concerns itself with typhus?

A. Will you read the question again?

Q. If a soldier deserts from the front where typhus is raging
for fear that he too will contract typhus and prefers to be
imprisoned in order thus to save himself, do you think it is right
for him to be persuaded while he is serving his sentence to subject
himself to a typhus experiment?

A. As a volunteer? Yes.

Q. I see. And would you not take a step further, if this prisoner
says, “No, I refuse, because if I do this there wouldn’t have been
any point in my deserting; I deserted in order to save myself.
My buddies may die but I would just prefer not to.”

A. The answer to that question is no.

Q. Don’t you admit that one can hold a different view in this
matter ?

A. Yes, but I don’t believe it could be justified.

❖ 5k *

H. Usefulness of the Experiments

a. Introduction

Both by testimony and argument the defense claimed that the
medical experiments had generally been useful in furthering
medical science, that in some cases the experiments alleged as
criminal had increased the speed of the progress of medical sci-
ence, and that in some cases there was no other alternative for
the development of medical science except to conduct experiments
on human beings. The prosecution, in addition to arguing that
voluntary participation by the subject of experimentation was
a prerequisite of legal experiments, argued that the experiments
turned out to be entirely useless for medical science and human
progress, and that in some cases it was doubtful if considerations
of medical science played any controlling role in the decision to
conduct the experiments.

Selections from the defense argumentation have been made
from the final pleas for the defendants Becker-Freyseng and
Beiglboeck. Extracts from these final pleas appear below on
pages 62 to 64. A part of the opening statement of the prosecu-
tion (vol. I, p. 37 ff.) was devoted to this topic. Defense evi-

dence on the usefulness of the experiments has been selected
from the direct examination of the defendants Mrugowsky and
Rose. Extracts from their testimony appear below on pages 66
to 70.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT BECKER-FREYSENG *

* * * * * * *

At the moment I consider one factor above all to be material.
It is the following question: Was everything done, when the
sea-water experiments were being planned, to furnish all data
required for establishing the necessity of the experiments? And
I think I can definitely answer this question in the affirmative.

The defense has proved the high sense of responsibility applied
to the inquiry on the necessity of the sea-water experiments.
Scientists of international reputation, like Professor Dr. Eppinger
and Professor Heubner, were consulted, and they definitely an-
swered this question in the affirmative. More cannot be expected
or demanded in the way of a sense of responsibility. In my
opinion, the mere fact that these scientists were asked their
opinion on the issue in question shows that everything was done
on the part of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
and his office to reach the right decision in this question.

With regard to the purely objective judgment of the sea-water
experiments and their necessity, I should like to refer to the
statements made in my closing brief for Dr. Becker-Freyseng.

At this point, I should, however, like to add the following:
The prosecution has tried to make out that it was the purpose
of these sea-water experiments to decide whether Berkatit re-
moves the salt from sea water. This contention of the prosecution
has in no way been proved. I must stress here again, most em-
phatically, that this was never the purpose of the sea-water
experiments.

All people concerned realized that Berkatit does not remove
the salt from sea water. The question which was to be clarified
and which necessitated the experiments was rather the following :
Under the action of the vitamins contained in Berkatit, will the
kidneys be capable of producing a urine with a higher sodium
chloride concentration than is normally the case? Dr. Eppinger
answered this question neither in the affirmative nor in the

♦ Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 47, pp. 11289-11809.

negative; he stated that this question could be decided only by
experiment.

In addition there was another question to be decided, as to
whether in case of shipwreck it would be more desirable to
endure thirst, or whether marooned fliers should be advised to
drink small quantities of salt water. In 1942-1944 this question
was also raised in the United States and England and there, too,
human experiments were carried out. But all these individual
questions were only part of the great issue of how shipwrecked
persons could be helped to escape the agony and danger of dying
from thirst. These issues were the basis for the experiments con-
ducted in 1944. In my opinion it is not admissible to construe
arbitrarily another issue today and to contend on the basis of
such issue, which never existed, that these experiments were not
necessary. These medical issues alone necessitated the experi-
ments. There were other issues too, to which I want to make
short reference.

Until 1944 the world lacked an agent to make sea water drink-
able. Such an agent was an absolute necessity. Nobody denied
even then that Wofatit, developed by the defendant Schaefer,
would have been an ideal agent for this purpose. It was, however,
equally clear that this agent could only be manufactured by with-
drawing the necessary raw material, namely silver, from other
war-essential uses.

Furthermore, it was not denied that Berkatit did not require
critical raw materials in the same measure. Another circumstance
to be considered was that Berkatit could have been produced in
existing plants, whereas it would have been necessary to erect
new plants for the production of Wofatit. Accordingly, these
technical reasons favored the introduction of Berkatit. It can
hardly be denied that it was necessary for a medical officer con-
scious of his responsibilities in war to consider these reasons when
reaching a decision. Incidentally, the expert of the prosecution,
Professor Ivy, also stated that these reasons were definitely
worthy of consideration.

Accordingly it had to be clarified, whether Berkatit could not,
after all, be introduced for distribution to persons facing the risk
of shipwreck, and the inquiry into this question was all the more
necessary as, according to the opinion of Professor Eppinger and
Professor Heubner, Berkatit apparently contained vitamins which
eliminated the risks incurred by human beings when drinking
sea water. Whether the opinion of the experts, Heubner and Ep-
pinger, was right or not, could, at that time as today, only be
established by experiment.

Hence if the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who examined

all these factors and applied all precautions possible, became con-
vinced in 1944 that the experiments could not be avoided, and if,
from this viewpoint, in his official capacity as a consultant (Re-
ferent) he reported to his highest authority at that time, Pro-
fessor Dr. Schroeder, that he considered the experiments neces-
sary, then, in my opinion, he can in no way be charged under
criminal law on that account.

Therefore, in my opinion, it has been proved that Dr. Becker-
Freyseng considered these experiments necessary and that he was
entitled to consider them necessary. And this question alone can
be made the basis for an inquiry into his guilt under criminal
law.

With regard to this point, I would like in conclusion to refer
to the testimony of Professor Dr. Vollhardt. This world-famous
physician, this research scientist, recognized as such in inter-
national circles, upon whom, only a few weeks ago, on the occasion
of his 75th birthday, the highest German decoration of science was
bestowed, namely the Goethe Medal for Art and Science, a cere-
mony in which nearly all European countries, also America,
joined, stated before this high Tribunal, and I quote:

“I regarded it as sign of a sense of responsibility that in
view of the increasing number of flying accidents, the sea-
emergency question was taken up and these experiments were
launched.”

Insofar, I consider it proved that the planning of these experiments
was in no way objectionable.

* # % ❖

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK *

* * ❖ 4 * * * *

Even medical science on both sides had to assist warfare. I
have before me the index of the best known scientific English
periodicals from the war period, “The Lancet” and “Nature”.
Now, after the war, General T. J. Betts of the United States War
Department and Professor W. T. Sinsteat of the British Supply
Office declared that the captured German scientific results accom-
plished during the war were of the greatest use for the economic
progress of British and American industry. Even the terrible
freezing experiments of Dr. Rascher proved to be of greatest use
for America in the war against Japan. ( Becker-Freyseng 31,
Becker-Freyseng Ex. 18.)

* Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp. 11128-11152.

c. Evidence

Defense Documents

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page

Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Extracts from Harper’s 65

31 Ex. 18 Magazine entitled “Secrets

by the Thousand” by C.

Lester Walker.

Testimony

Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 66

Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 69

BECKER-FREYSENG DOCUMENT 31
BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 18

EXTRACTS FROM HARPER'S MAGAZINE ENTITLED "SECRETS BY THE
THOUSAND" BY C. LESTER WALKER

Someone wrote to Wright Field recently saying he understood
this country had got together quite a collection of enemy war
secrets, that many were now on public sale, and could he, please,
be sent everything on German jet engines. The Air Documents
Division of the Army Air Force answered: “Sorry — but that
would be fifty tons.”

Moreover, that fifty tons was just a small portion of what is
today undoubtedly the biggest collection of captured enemy war
secrets ever assembled. If you always thought of war secrets —
as who hasn’t — as coming in sixes and sevens, as a few items
of information readily handed on to the properly interested au-
thorities, it may interest you to learn that the war secrets in this
collection run into the thousands, that the mass of documents is
mountainous, and that there has never before been anything quite
comparable to it.

* * *

One Washington official has called it “the greatest single source
of this type of material in the world — the first orderly exploitation
of an entire country’s brainpower”.

How the collection came to be goes back, for beginnings, to one
day in 1944 when the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff set in
motion a colossal search for war secrets in occupied German
territory. They created a group of military-civilian teams, termed
the Joint Intelligence Objectives Committee, which was to follow
the invading armies into Germany and uncover all her military,

scientific, and industrial secrets for early use against Japan. These
teams worked against time to get the most vital information
before it was destroyed, and in getting it performed prodigies of
ingenuity and tenacity.

* 5jc * # * * *

III

In matters of food, medicine, and branches of the military art,
the finds of the search teams were no less impressive. And in
aeronautics and guided missiles they proved to be downright
alarming.

* * jfc

“As for medical secrets in this collection”, one Army surgeon
has remarked, “some of them will save American medicine years
of research; some of them are revolutionary — like, for instance,
the German technique of treatment after prolonged and usually
fatal exposure to cold.”

This discovery — revealed to us by Major Alexander’s search
already mentioned — reversed everything medical science thought
about the subject. In every one of the dread experiments the
subjects were most successfully revived, both temporarily and
permanently, by immediate immersion in hot water. In two cases
of complete standstill of heart and cessation of respiration, a hot
bath at 122° brought both subjects back to life. Before our war
with Japan ended, this method was adopted as the treatment for
use by all American Air-Sea Rescue Services, and it is generally
accepted by medicine today.

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY *
DIRECT EXAMINATION

5jC % % %

Dr. Flemming: I further submit an excerpt from the testi-
mony of Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber which he made on 26 August
1946 before the International Military Tribunal. This can be
found in the transcript of the International Military Tribunal for
that date. This is Mrugowsky Document 27. I offer it as Mrugow-
sky Exhibit 45. Answering the question, “What scientific value
did the experiments [typhus experiments in Buchenwald] of the
specialist Ding have”? Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber answered, “In
my opinion they had no scientific value at all because during the

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, 28, 31 March.
1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 6000-6244, 6334-6464.

war we had already gained much experience and collected a great
deal of data in this field. We were thoroughly acquainted with
the composition and qualities of our vaccine and no such tests
were required any longer. Many of the vaccines examined by
Ding were not used any more at all and were rejected/’

Would you define your position to that statement ?

Defendant Mrugowsky: I do not know how Schreiber could
have expressed that opinion, nor do I know whether he is in pos-
session of full knowledge of the results of this work. I never dis-
cussed this question with him and I therefore cannot examine it.
This much is clear, however, that Schreiber is speaking of a later
period of time, for the vaccines that were no longer produced
were not produced because the experiments of Ding had proved
their inferiority. The epidemiological examination of the various
vaccines during the war only originates from a later period, in
particular the years 1943 and 1944. The exploitation of these
experiences only originates from the last years of the war and it
is, therefore, my opinion that this testimony of Schreiber is in-
correct.

Q. I am interrupting you and I shall have Handloser Exhibit 14
shown to you. We are here concerned with an excerpt of a sci-
entific thesis by Geheimrat Otto. Do you know Geheimrat Otto?

A. Yes, I know Geheimrat Otto. He is probably the best typhus
expert not only in Germany but in Europe, who has dealt with
typhus all his life.

Q. From this excerpt you will see that Geheimrat Otto says,
still in 1943 :

“While the efficacy of lice vaccines has already been tested
on a large scale in Poland, Ethiopia, and China, and the vaccine
has proved its value, it is still necessary to gather large-scale
practical experiences with lung and vitelline membrane vaccines.
In animal experiments they have proved of equal value with
the former.”

Would you say something on that?

A. Professor Otto says here that even in the year 1943 the
vitelline membrane vaccine and the vaccines from lungs of animals
were not sufficiently known. That confirms what I have just tes-
tified and that is in answer to Dr. Schreiber’s statement.

Q. The witness Bernhard Schmidt, who was interrogated here,
stated that human experiments were superfluous for the purpose
of testing vaccines and that the value of the individual typhus
vaccines could have been ascertained in an epidemiological way.
What is your opinion in that connection?

A. This is my opinion also. It is my opinion that these tests

could have been carried out in an epidemiological manner. I repre-
sented that point of view before Grawitz and Himmler from the
very beginning.

Q. You stated yesterday that to test this matter in an epidemio-
logical way, a large number of persons would have had to be
vaccinated and compared with a large number of persons who
were not vaccinated. Would such a long experiment have been
possible considering the circumstances prevailing during the
war?

A. Such a test would have been possible. It was actually intro-
duced by me within the framework of the ministry. It is a matter
of course, however, that the results can only be collected at a very
late date and can only be exploited at a much later date. In the
case of the entire experiment we were concerned with bridging
over this space of time.

Q. In carrying out this examination one could have found
that one vaccine has only a very small effectiveness, as was
actually found out in the case of the Behring vaccine. In that case
would you say that the mortality of persons vaccinated with the
inferior vaccine would have been much greater than the entire
amount of fatalities as they occurred in Buchenwald? You know
that the statement regarding the fatality figures fluctuated be-
tween 100 and 120.

A. That could be assumed to be the case with certainty. A
comparison is the manner in which all tests are carired out in this
field. I shall give you a few examples for that. When Emil von
Behring in the year 1890 discovered the diphtheria serum, it was
at first used by a physician of the Berlin Charite in the case of
diphtheria-infected children. He treated about 1,200 children suf-
fering from diphtheria with that serum. He registered a mortality
rate in the case of these children, in spite of the treatment, of
approximately 22 percent. Just as many children did not receive
the serum but were treated in a different manner. In this group
the mortality rate was double, approximately 44 percent. These
240 or 250 children who died, and who were in that control group
could certainly have been saved if they had been given the bless-
ing of that diphtheria serum. But that was in reality the purpose
of that test and one had to take into account that a larger ratio
of fatalities would result in the group to be compared and that
then the value of the serum would be recognized.

Q. I think that this example will suffice. In that case you are
really admitting that an objection against experiments in Buchen-
wald could not be justified?

A. During the war I did not work on any disease as ardently as
on typhus. I treated thousands of patients who fell ill with typhus

and examined them. I believe that in the case of such an experi-
ence one gains some knowledge of the disease. I often considered
that question and I hold the opinion that my objection at the time
was perhaps not justified by events. On the other hand, it is my
opinion that in the case of every task one has to keep the ques-
tion in mind whether one is in a position to execute that task. I
must admit even today that in spite of the success of the experi-
ments, which cannot be denied, I would act similarly in yet an-
other position and would assume the same attitude as I assumed
at that time. Even today I would not be prepared to carry out
any such experiments personally or have them carried out upon
my responsibility, although success undoubtedly would come
about.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE *

DIRECT EXAMINATION

* * * * * * *

Dr. Fritz : What do you know about the reasons for this pro-
test (against experiments) being ignored and the typhus experi-

ments being carried out in spite of it?

# # sfs * $

Defendant Rose: The Buchenwald experiments (with typhus
vaccine) had four main results. First of all, they showed that
belief in the protective effect of Weigl vaccine was a mistake,
although this belief seemed to be based on long observation.
Secondly, they showed that the useful vaccines did not protect
against infection, but almost certainly prevented death, under the
conditions of the Buchenwald experiments. Thirdly, they showed
that the objections of the biological experts to the vitelline mem-
brane vaccines and to the lice vaccines were unjustified, and
that vitelline membrane, rabbit lungs, and lice intestines were of
equal value. We learned this only through the Buchenwald experi-
ments. This left the way open to mass production of typhus
vaccines.

The Buchenwald experiments showed in time that several vac-
cines were useless. First, the process according to Otto and Wohl-
rab, the process according to Cox, the process of Rickettsia
Prowazeki and Rickettsia murina, that is, vaccine from egg cul-
tures; secondly, the vaccines of the Behring works which were
produced according to the Otto process, but with other concen-

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
April 47, pp. 6081-6484.

trations; finally the Ipsen vaccines from mouse liver. The vac-
cines of the Behring works were in actual use at that time in
thousands of doses. They always represented a danger to health.
Without these experiments the vaccines, which were recognized
as useless, would have been produced in large quantities because
they all had one thing in common: their technical production
was much simpler and cheaper than that of the useful vaccines.
In any case, one thing is certain, that the victims of this Buchen-
wald typhus test did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain.
There was only one choice, the sacrifice of human lives, of per-
sons determined for that purpose, or to let things run their
course, to endanger the lives of innumerable human beings who
would be selected not by the Reich Criminal Police Office but by
blind fate.

How many people were sacrificed we cannot figure out today;
how many people were saved by these experiments we, of course,
cannot prove. The individual who owes his life to these experi-
ments does not know it, and he perhaps is one of the accusers of
the doctors who assumed this difficult task.

I. Medical Ethics
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
a. Introduction

In a case involving the charge that human beings were sub-
jected to medical experiments of many kinds under varying cir-
cumstances, it was inevitable that questions of medical ethics
became a part of the proof and the argumentation.

The prosecution’s rejoinder to the statement of the defendant
Rose appears on page 71. As illustrations of the defense position
on medical ethics, extracts have been taken from the final pleas
for the defendants Gebhardt and Beiglboeck. These appear on
pages 71 to 77. Considerable testimony was given on this question
by defendants and by expert witnesses, and appears on pages
77 to 86. Selections from this testimony have been taken from
the direct examination of the defendant Rose, the cross-examina-
tion of the prosecution witness Professor Werner Leibbrandt,
and from the direct examination of the prosecution witness Dr.
Andrew C. Ivy.

The judgment of the Tribunal deals at some length with the
medical ethics applicable to experimentation on human beings
(p. 181 ff.).

b. Selecfion from fhe Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT
OF THE PROSECUTION 1

*******

In view of the clear and unequivocal proof of the defendant
Rose’s participation in the typhus murders of Buchenwald he
can only plead that he didn’t enjoy doing what he did, that he
objected to the experiments at the Third Meeting of the Con-
sulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht in May 1943. But this
is his condemnation, not his salvation. In March 1942 he was
in Buchenwald and saw what was being done. In May of the
same year he asked Mrugowsky to test a vaccine for him in those
experiments. Four inmates were killed as a result. In May 1943,
he objected to the experiments in what he describes as strong
terms. But in December, he was again instigating still another
experiment which resulted in the murder of six men. He is a
living example of a man who could have abstained from partici-
pating in these crimes without threat of harm to his person
or position by any agency of the Nazi Government. He was not
arrested and tried by the SS because of his objection. He was
not committed to a concentration camp. In spite of that, he
voluntarily participated in these same crimes to which he said
he objected. With his knowledge, prestige, and position, he is
even more culpable than the miserable and inexperienced Ding
who actually performed the experiments in the murder wards
of Buchenwald.

****** *

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT GEBHARDT 2

*******
The Principles of Medical Ethics and the Applicable Law

During the hearing of evidence, views were repeatedly given
on the question of which principles of medical ethics are to be
considered when performing experiments on human beings. In
my opening statement before the evidence was submitted I pointed
out that in the case of these defendants there is no reason to

1 Closing: statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 1947, pp. 10718-
10796.

2 Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp. 10874-10911.

examine fundamental questions of medical ethics in these pro-
ceedings. Law and ethics are measured by different standards
which sometimes contradict each other. The same applies to the
principles of general ethics as well as to those of a particular
profession. A deed offending the recognized principles of medical
ethics does not necessarily constitute a crime. Only the cogent
precepts of the law can be used as the basis for a verdict, and not
the unwritten regulations and convictions existing inside a pro-
fession.

However, it cannot be concluded from this that the principles
of medical ethics and their practical application were of no im-
portance at all in these proceedings. These principles cannot, of
course, be applied directly. At the same time there is no doubt
that the principles of medical ethics and above all their practical
application in recent decades can play an indirect part insofar
as they have to be taken into consideration when interpreting
the law. However, evidence has now proved that in recent decades
and even earlier, numerous experiments were carried out on
human beings, and, moreover, on persons who did not volunteer
for such purpose. In this respect I refer to the statements of
the expert Professor Dr. Leibbrandt, witness for the prosecution.
I furthermore refer to the extensive evidence submitted by the
prosecution on this question from which it appears that in
numerous cases experiments were carried out on human beings,
of the nature and degree of danger of which they could not have
been aware and to which they would never have agreed volun-
tarily. The only conclusion which can be drawn from these facts
is that during recent decades views on this question have changed
in the same way as the relations between the individual and the
community in general have changed. In this connection I need
not give the detailed reasons which led to this development. It
is a fact that, at least in Europe, the state and the community
have taken a different attitude toward the individual. However
differently one may write about the change in these relations in
detail, one thing is certain, namely, that the state has more and
more taken possession of the individual and limited his personal
freedom. This is evidently one of the accompanying facts of
technics and the modern mass-state. It must be added that the
development of medicine in the course of the last decades has
led to discriminating formulations of questions which can no
longer be solved by means of the laboratory and animal experi-
ments.

The evidence has shown that not only in Germany and perhaps
not even primarily in this country, the reorganization of the
relationship between community and individual has resulted in

new methods in the sphere of medical science. In nearly all coun-
tries experiments have been performed on human beings under
conditions which entirely exclude volunteering in a legal sense.

Immediate consequences arise for the interpretation of the
law from this change of medical views and above all from the
change in medical practice, since the essence of the law is uni-
versal and abstract and naturally does not state the limits and
the conditions under which experiments on human beings are
permissible and the borderline of the criminality of such an
experiment. The real practice regarding this question is all the
more important for the interpretation of the law since almost
every law, including Control Council Law No. 10, contains stand-
ard rudiments of case facts, which means that determination in
a particular case can only be the outcome of a judicial judgment.
No special proof is needed to show that the question when and
within what limits medical experiments are admissible calls for
a judicial judgment, and that this cannot be established without
taking practical experience into consideration, not only in Ger-
many but also outside Germany. The standard rudiments of case
facts are part of the legal facts and deal with illegality as char-
acteristic of the punishable act. Actual medical practice inside
and outside Germany, however, has not only to be considered
when examining the question as to whether the actions constitut-
ing the subject of the indictment are illegal, but above all it is
fundamentally important when answering the further question
as to whether the actions constituting the subject of this pro-
cedure constitute a criminal offense. In view of the fact that a
criminal offense is not likely to be a permanent psychological fact
but a standard computed fact in the sense of a personal reproach,
the Court for this reason also will not overlook the fact that
particularly during the last years, even outside Germany, medical
experiments were performed on human beings who undoubtedly
did not volunteer for these experiments. The unity of law and
the indivisibility of its basic idea exclude judging one and the
same fact simultaneously according to different legal principles
and standards.

I shall comment later on the question of whether the defendants
in the performance of the experiments which constitute the in-
dictment acted primarily in their capacity as physicians, or
whether their conduct — if a just decision is to be rendered — must
no longer be regarded from the viewpoint of war service as
medically trained research scientists.

❖ ❖ ❖ * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK*

*******

If one confronts the doctor with that type of scientist who,
with the test tube in his laboratory, with the syringe or the
surgical knife in his hand, steps on animal and human corpses,
in order so fanatically to satisfy his scientific instinct, then we
very decidedly object to such a scientist. We have found this type
in the documents of this trial in the person of Dr. Rascher, whose
name casts a dark shadow over the proceedings. Dr. Leibbrandt,
the protector of medical ethics, would therefore have rendered
a good service to German science if, in his capacity as a psychia-
trist, we had pointed out that Rascher, this sadist and psycho-
pathist, had nothing whatsoever to do with real science.

It is my duty as a defense counsel to emphasize energetically
that it is not permissible to construct from local coincidences any
connection between my client and Rascher and his system.

The scientific research worker sees his task in the discovery of
the unknown in order to equip the doctor with new weapons in
his fight for human life. I briefly want to demonstrate with two
examples why the modern medical profession cannot renounce
the scientific research work that was impossible without great
efforts and sacrifices (1) giving a brief description of the develop-
ment of modern surgery; (2) mentioning the school to which
the defendant Beiglboeck belonged as a pupil and a teacher. I do
not give this second example in order to glorify my country, but
because the particular influence of its teachers is decisive for the
spiritual standard of the personality.

At the beginning of modern surgery stands that mighty figure
of English surgery, Joseph Lister, whose great idea it was that
the surgeon should not fight the inflammation of the wound but
should prevent its cause, i.e., germs entering externally.

Thanks to bacteriology, anti-sepsis was changed into asepsis.

Over the entrance gate of the General Hospital in Vienna we
read the words “Saluti et solatio aegrorum — Dedicated to the
health and consolation of the sick.” These words not only demand
the highest accomplishment of the doctor’s duties but are the
motive for the most successful work in the large field of medical
research. Theory and practice joined together in order to become
a piece of living humanity. I would go beyond the limits of my
task if I mentioned all the names that spread the glory of Vienna
University throughout the world. But their penetration into the

• Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp. 11128-11152.

world of the unknown was always a hazardous enterprise which
demanded courage and sacrifice.

I want to quote the words of one of the great doctors, Professor
Wagner- Jauregg, who says in his book “Fever and Infection
Therapy”,

“The vaccination against malaria was certainly a risk, the
outcome of which could not be foreseen. It was dangerous for
the patient himself and this to a much higher degree than the
treatment with tuberculin and other vaccines, and it also was
a danger for the surroundings and even for the community.”

And, on page 136, it states “Three patients died after having
been vaccinated with blood infected with malaria tropica and not
with malaria tertiana”; and “The tragic outcome of this experi-
ment was discouraging, and only a year later could the author
decide to proceed with the malaria vaccinations * *

Nobody talks of these victims today, but Wagner- Jauregg’s
revolutionary discovery is known and adopted throughout the
world and has become the common property of all peoples for
the benefit of suffering mankind.

These doctors who knew that the fight against disease and death
was a thorny path were all more than ready to sacrifice their own
lives.

The real scientist and the real doctor, therefore, do not oppose
each other. However, the scientist must not forget that nature is
the expression of the divine will and that only this cognition can
save him from the “hybris”, the boundlessness which for the
Greek tragedians was the greatest vice of mankind.

Above all, the words of the greatest German physician, Theo-
phrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, called Paracelsus, must be
applied to both scientist and doctor “The doctor grows with his
heart, he comes from God and is enlightened by Nature — the best
of all drugs is Love.”

My learned colleagues have compiled a long list of documents
on human experiments especially from the Western democracies.
It would be unjust, however, to conceal the enormous benefit of
the human experiment. The fact that Paul Ehrlich dared to re-
lease his drug “Salvarsan” before it had been sufficiently tested
saved thousands from the dangerous consequences of one of the
worst epidemics. The fact that Strong took the responsibility
upon himself to perform the probably very dangerous experiment
with plague bacilli made it possible to vaccinate thousands of
persons and to save them from almost certain death. The fact
that Strong was in a position to prove that Beriberi was a disease

841584 — 49—6

caused by a deficiency, and that Goldberger proved the same for
pellagra, made it possible to fight this deficiency and to liberate
entire countries from one of their worst diseases.

With regard to the criminal law, however, and the judgment
of crimes against humanity, it is the decisive result that in other
countries, too, under their own generally prevailing medical and
ethical convictions, doctors carried out similar or the same experi-
ments for the benefit of scientific research or in consideration
of a crisis in their country.

When I said that the surroundings had an influence on the
doctor’s attitude, I did not mean the second determining factor
of our individuality, the material influence on the organism which
might modify or mitigate the influence of the actual conditions
at the time upon the decisions of a physician.

Concentration camp, militarism, and peoples’ court — three im-
portant pillars of the Third Reich — they have collapsed. They
are not to be forgotten, however, when examining the guilt of
the individual. Every German had to fear them in one form or
another. And then came the war. War was once called “the steel
bath of the peoples”. Heraklit called it “the father of all things”.
I can only repeat the judgment of the IMT that “war is the evil
itself.” This is true to the highest degree for the last war. It was
a total, a terrible war. Even medical science on both sides had to
assist warfare. I have before me the index of the best known
scientific English periodicals from the war period, “Lancet” and
“Nature”. Now, after the war, General T. J. Betts of the United
States War Department and Professor W. T. Sinsteat of the
British Supply Office have declared that the captured German
scientific accomplishments during the war were of the greatest
use for the economic progress of British and American industry.
Even the terrible freezing experiments of Dr. Rascher proved to
be of the greatest use for America in the war against Japan.
( Becker-Freyseng 31, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 18.) And what about
us soldiers? We stood in the air-raid shelters, the Socialist beside
the Party member. We did not complain. We saw villages go up
in flames, innocent women and children become the victims of air
raids. We saw our country, the Fatherland, in distress, and, even
if we hated Hitler and his followers like the plague, we believed
that we had to fulfill our duty to our country to the bitter end.
One cannot explain these things, they have to be experienced. In
such times a doctor is placed unwillingly between Scylla and
Charybdis, between his concept of his profession and his duty
as a soldier. It is easy today to say with pathos from an academic
chair “numquam nocerel” A man does not say now, “I was a
member of the resistance. Day in and day out I was trying to

help persons who were racially and politically persecuted/' He
says, “Then, like everyone else, I merely did my duty/’

Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest Americans, said in a
speech before the American Congress in 1862 , “The dogmas of
the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. * * * In
the face of new events we must think and act in a new way."

With this I intend to conclude my statements about medical
ethics and to repeat the words which Liek wrote at the end of
his book, “The Doctor and His Mission", “If we want to abolish
undesirable conditions in medicine, we must follow our conscience
— to help and to heal, that is, today as always, the mission of the
doctor."

$$$$$$ *

d. Evidence

Testimony

Page

Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 77

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Professor Werner

Leibbrandt 80

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. Andrew
C. Ivy 82

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE*
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Dr. Fritz: You heard the lecture which Dr. Ding gave on his
experiments at the Third Conference of Consulting Physicians in
the Section for Hygiene and Tropical Hygiene?

Defendant Rose: Yes. That was the time when I protested
openly against this whole method.

Q. Well, what happened?

A. Dr. Ding gave his lecture in a camouflaged form as in his
article for the Journal of Hygiene and Infectious Diseases. There-
fore, the unsuspecting listener could not tell that it was about
experiments on human beings.

When the discussion began, I commented on the results of these
experiments. That part of my statement is contained in the

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 April
1947, pp. 6081-6484.

record of the conference. It is Document Rose 38, which has al-
ready been submitted. ( Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10.) I do not intend
to read these remarks, I simply want to point out that one can
find there what I said about the technical aspect of the experi-
ments and about the results.

Then I spoke of the ethical side of the whole thing and this
part of my statement has been stricken from the record. I can-
not, of course, reproduce today the exact wording but only the
sense of what I said. I said more or less as follows : As important
and as basic as the results may have been, they were nevertheless
achieved at the cost of a number of human lives. We as hygienists
should object against a life and death experiment being per-
formed as the prerequisite for the introduction of a vaccine. So
far, the customary procedure had been the testing with animal
experiments and subsequent determination of tolerance by human
beings and epidemiological exploitation. This procedure had proved
its value. We had to stick to it and we couldn’t let other political
and state authorities force us to conduct human experiments.
I spoke much longer at the time. I spoke for at least ten minutes.
Ding replied that he could pacify my conscience. The experi-
mental subjects had been criminals condemned to death. My an-
swer was: I knew that myself. I was not interested in the indi-
viduals concerned but in the principle of human experiments in
testing vaccines. At this comment Professor Schreiber inter-
rupted the discussion. He said he protested against my criticism
and if we wanted to discuss basic ethical questions we could do
that during the recess. He would have this part of the discussion
stricken from the record and that was done. After the meeting
various participants came to me and we discussed the whole
matter. Some agreed with me; others were convinced that in
such an important question human experiments were justi-
fied. Of course, those people who believed Ding’s assurance that
the subjects were criminals condemned to death. I no longer
remember the individual men with whom I talked during the
recess and I don’t know who was in favor and who was against
it. The only one I remember is Professor Mrugowsky because
he spoke as an SS member and the experiments had been con-
ducted by an SS doctor, and because I thought that Mrugowsky
was Ding’s superior in every way. Of course, I remember that
Mrugowsky of all people came and said that, in principle, he
agreed with me, and that he had expressed similar misgivings
to Grawitz and that Grawitz had rejected his misgivings. Then I
also learned from Mrugowsky that Himmler was behind all these
experiments.

*******

Dr. Fritz: Did you later discuss the matter of experiments
on human beings before a large group of people?

Defendant Rose: Yes. That happened once again before a
large number of people, but it was not about typhus experiments.
It must have been about October 1944. The question at hand then
was grippe. There was a meeting, a rather large meeting at
which grippe vaccine was discussed. A number of people reported
on the vaccines which they had developed in the laboratory.
Among others, Professor Herzberg reported on a vaccine made
from dead grippe virus, and Professor Haagen on a vaccine made
from living avirulent grippe virus, which he had already tested
on personnel at the Strasbourg clinic. Someone in the meeting,
I don’t remember who, suggested that the Haagen tests had been
insufficient, and that this vaccine should be tested on a larger
number of persons. There was no mention of concentration camps
then but of student companies. I had considerable misgivings
about such experimental vaccination and expressed them. I said
that I considered the experimental basis inadequate for these
vaccines to be used on human beings. I was not convinced that
the virus had been sufficiently attenuated. There was a danger
that the vaccine would lead to infection, and one could not take
that responsibility on one’s self. It was first of all intended to
observe the effectiveness of the protection by determining whether
people fell ill of grippe in natural ways after being vaccinated.
Then someone else made the suggestion that this would take too
long, and we did not know whether there would be an influenza
epidemic during that time, and that therefore after the vaccines
the subject should be infected with a virulent virus. Since I had
already expressed objections to the vaccination, I opposed this
proposal even more strongly, and the result of this discussion was
that infections were not carried out, but it was decided to carry
out the vaccination. Whether these vaccinations were carried out
or not, I do not know. At any rate I read no order to the effect
that anyone should perform the vaccinations nor did I ever read
a report that the vaccinations were carried out. Only later on
in imprisonment did I hear that similar experiments, such as were
then discussed, and of which I disapproved, were carried out by
the British Medical Service on German PW’s. Genzken probably
participated personally in this, but I had heard about this before
in the internment hospital Karlsruhe where there were people
who had experienced these vaccinations.

*******

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
PROFESSOR WERNER LEIBBRANDT *

*******
CROSS-EX AMIN A TION

Dr. Servatius: Witness, you stated that the performance of
experiments on human beings, as is the subject of the indictment
here, can be ascribed to biological thought. What do you mean by
biological thought?

Witness Leibbrandt: By biological thought I mean the atti-
tude of a physician who does not take the subject into considera-
tion at all, but for whom the patient has become a mere object,
so that the human relationship no longer exists, and a man be-
comes a mere object like a mail package.

Q. You spoke of thinking as a biologist. Do I understand that
you see therein an action belonging to biological thought?

A. An exaggeration of the purely mechanical or biological
point of view, because the physician is not merely a biologist, he
is also a biologist. Primarily, however, a physician is a man who
assists the human being and not a scientific judge of biological
events.

Q. Could there not be other causes for the experiments, such
as a collective state thinking?

A. Yes.

Q. Witness, you used the expression “demoniac order”. What
do you mean by that?

A. By demoniac order I mean the following: If I define as a
basis for medical activity merely the maintenance and safeguard-
ing of the substance of the nation according to blood, the result
is that everything which falls outside this pretense has to be
cleared away. That is a mild expression of what actually hap-
pened, namely, extermination.

Q. Then your demoniac order only refers to the blood aspect.
Could it not be applied to the purely state collective aspect as
well?

A. Could you give an example so that I can understand it
better ?

Q. I mean that experiments were undertaken and that the vol-
untary act of the individual is replaced by the act of the state,
namely, by the voluntary approval given by the state.

* Professor of History of Medicine at Erlangen University.

Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 Jan. 1947, pp. 1961-
2028.

A. Between the collective idea and the state order on the one
hand and the medical individual on the other, there stands some-
thing rather important — the human conscience.

* * * * * 3fc *

Q. Professor, if all these experiments were actually conducted,
and also as you said this morning and as Moll’s book shows, Moll
alone published approximately six hundred works about thou-
sands of such experiments (on human beings), must one not say
that wide circles of medical men judge the question of experi-
ments on human beings under certain conditions differently from
you — from an ethical point of view?

A. That I cannot say, because even Moll writes at the end
of this work that it is part of a physician’s morals to restrain
his urge for natural research in favor of the basic medical atti-
tude as laid down in the oath of Hippocrates, namely, to cause
no arbitrary harm to his patient.

Q. But in your opinion, Professor, how should a doctor work
in the interest of suffering humanity in cases where, as you have
just said, there is no possibility of experiments on animals?

A. The concept of humanity is a very dangerous concept. It is
most dangerous of all for the physician. For the physician, the
individual stands above all humanity and the individual unfortu-
nately has sunk very low in these last few years.

Q. I believe that you have not quite answered my question. I
asked: How do you think the doctor should solve certain ques-
tions even in the interest of the individual — questions which can-
not be tested with animal experiments and test tubes, as is the
case with malaria for instance. This is a problem which must be
cleared up if he is to help his suffering patients.

A. That is naturally a very difficult question. But in the end
the main thing will always be that a risk must have certain
limits.

Q. Thank you. Now I come to another point. This morning,
Professor, you expressed disapproval about a book which the
defendant Mrugowsky wrote on medical ethics. May I ask, have
you read this book?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Mrugowsky personally?

A. No.

Q. Then you do not know his ethical point of view?

A. I said that it was quite an ironical joke of world history for
someone to quote the high medical ethics of Hufeland in the form
of excerpts from his writings, as far as I remember, with a few
connecting words and to combine these quotations in a modest

little volume, while on the other hand we now know how it was
entangled organizationally with the deeds under discussion here.
I am only speaking about the entanglement and not about the
objective guilt which has not yet been proved.

Q. And from where else do you infer Mrugowsky’s entangle-
ment with the facts under discussion here, apart from the fact
that he is one of the defendants indicted?

A. After all, he was the Chief of the SS Hygienic System,
and the medical principles of an ethical nature personified by the
SS have become clear to me during the last few years. There
seems to me to be a large gap between these two things, between
these deeds of SS medical ethics and the ethics of Hufeland. I
might perhaps understand how a man like Mr. Haubhold could
be enthusiastic about a one-sided interpretation of political med-
icine by Josef Peter Frank in the 18th century. But I cannot
understand how the SS ethics can be connected up with the honest
ethics of Christian Hufeland.

Q. Professor, you just told us you do not know Mrugowsky
at all?

A. No.

Q. Then how can you express a judgment on his personal eth-
ical attitude? You are merely judging from the fact that he
belonged to the SS. Before you express such an opinion as you are
doing, before you talk about a joke of world history, must you
not first know the personal attitude of the person you are crit-
icizing, and is it not quite possible that his personal attitude was
such as is expressed in this book?

A. I don’t believe that one can hold a leading position in the
SS and then talk about such personal ethics, unless, of course, in
ethical questions one does what is called double bookkeeping.

Q. But you admit that all your criticism is pure assumption,
in no way based on personal knowledge of the person criticized?

A. I do not know Mr. Mrugowsky.

Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT
WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY*

DIRECT EXAMINATION

* * * * * * *

Mr. Hardy: Now, Professor Ivy, before adjournment you were
beginning to discuss medical ethics in the United States.

5k * % * * *

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14 June 1947, pp.

9029-9324.

Do you have there also the principles and rules as set forth
by the American Medical Association to be followed ?

Witness Dr. Ivy: Yes.

Q. What was the basis on which the American Medical Asso-
ciation adopted those rules?

A. I submitted to them a report of certain experiments which
had been performed on human subjects along with my conclusions
as to what the principles of ethics should be for use of human
beings as subjects in medical experiments. I asked the association
to give me a statement regarding the principles of medical ethics
and what the American Medical Association had to say regarding
the use of human beings as subjects in medical experiments.

Q. Would you kindly pass up to me that ruling of the prin-
ciples put out by the American Medical Association? This ap-
parently isn't what I am referring to, Doctor. Do you have a
publication which is published by the American Medical Associa-
tion entitled “Principles of Ethics Concerning Experimentation
on Human Beings”?

A. Not with me here.

Q. Well now, you have, first of all, a basic requirement for
experimentation on human beings, “(1) the voluntary consent of
the individual upon whom the experiment is to be performed
must be obtained.”

A. Yes.

Q. “(2) The danger of each experiment must be previously
investigated by animal experimentation,” and “(3) the experiment
must be performed under proper medical protection and manage-
ment.”

Now, does that purport to be the principles upon which all
physicians and scientists guide themselves before they resort to
medical experimentation on human beings in the United States?

A. Yes. They represent the basic principles approved by the
American Medical Association for the use of human beings as sub-
jects in medical experiments.

Judge Sebring: How do the principles which you have just
enunciated comport with the principles of the medical profession
over the civilized world generally?

A. They are identical, according to my information. It was with
that idea in mind that I cited the principles which were men-
tioned in this circular letter from the Reich Minister of the In-
terior dated 28 February 1931 to indicate that the ethical prin-
ciples for the use of human beings as subjects in medical experi-
ments in Germany in 1931 were similar to those which I have
enunciated and which have been approved by the House of Dele-
gates of the American Medical Association.

Mr. Hardy : Is it possible that in some field of scientific research
investigation by animal experimentation would be inadequate?

A. Will you repeat that question? I did not get it.

Q. Is it possible in some fields of medical research that experi-
mentation or investigation on animals would be inadequate ?

A. Yes. The experiment on trench fever is a very good example.

Q. How would you investigate the danger of the experiment
prior to resorting to the use of human beings?

A. The hazard would have to be determined by a careful study
of the natural history of the disease.

Q. Does malaria also fall into that category?

A. We can use animals to some extent in malarial studies,
canaries and ducks, for example, develop malaria ; and in research
designed to discover a better drug for the treatment of malaria
we can use Avian Malaria as a sort of screen method to detect
which compounds might be employed with some assurance and
might be effective in human malaria. In that way we decrease the
random and unnecessary experimentation on man.

Q. To your knowledge have any experiments been conducted
in the United States wherein these requirements which you set
forth were not met ?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Hardy : Your Honor, I have no further questions concern-
ing medical ethics to put to Dr. Ivy; however, I do have one
question concerning the high-altitude experiments which I wish
to go back to at the conclusion of that complex, in high altitude,
and I will have completed my direct examination.

Presiding Judge Beals: The Tribunal has no questions of the
witness. Do I understand that you have completed your examina-
tion of the witness?

Mr. Hardy: No. I have not; I have a further question to put
to him, but I was going to leave the case of medical ethics.

Presiding Judge Beals: We have no questions on that subject;
you may proceed.

Mr. Hardy: Dr. Ivy, in medical science and research is the use
of human subjects necessary?

Witness Dr. Ivy : Yes, in a number of instances.

Q. Is it frequently necessary and does it perform great good to
humanity ?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. Do you have an opinion that the state, for instance, the
United States of America, could assume the responsibility of a
physician to his patient or experimental subject, or is that respon-
sibility solely the moral responsibility of the physician or scien-
tist?

A. I do not believe the state can assume the moral responsibility
that a physician has for his patient or experimental subject.

Dr. Seidl: I object to this question in that it is a purely legal
question which the Court has to answer.

Dr. Sauter (for the defendants Ruff and Romberg) : If I am
not mistaken, a document was read this morning which said that
the state assumes the responsibility. I believe that I am not
mistaken in this. I also want to point out something else, gen-
tlemen, in order to supplement what Dr. Seidl just said.

The question asked here is always what the opinion of the
medical profession in America is. For us in this trial, in the
evaluation of German defendants, that is not decisive. In my
opinion the decisive question is for example, in 1942, when the
altitude experiments were undertaken at Dachau, what the atti-
tude of the medical profession in Germany was. From my point
of view as a defense counsel I do not object if the prosecution
asks Professor Ivy what the attitude or opinion of the medical
profession in Germany was in 1942. If he can answer that ques-
tion, all right, let him answer it, but we are not interested in
finding out what the ethical attitude of the medical profession
in the United States was. In my opinion a German physician who
in Germany performed experiments on Germans cannot be judged
exclusively according to an American medical opinion, which
moreover dates from the year 1945 and was coded in the years
1945 and 1946 for future use; it can also have no retroactive
force.

Presiding Judge Beals: The first objection imposed by Dr.
Seidl might be pertinent if the question of legality was concerned,
a legal responsibility, that would be a question for a court. The
question of moral responsibility is a proper subject to inquire of
the witness.

As to Dr. Sauter’s objection, the opinion of the witness as to
medical sentiment in America may be received. The counsel’s
objection goes to its weight rather than to admissibility. The
witness could be asked if he is aware of the sentiment in Amer-
ica in 1942 and whether it is different from this of the present
day or whether it does not differ. The witness may also be asked
whether he is aware of the opinion as to medical ethics in other
countries or throughout the civilized world. But the objections
are both overruled.

Mr. Hardy: It is your opinion, then, that the state cannot
assume the moral responsibility of a physician to his patient or
experimental subject?

Witness Dr. Ivy : That is my opinion.

Q. On what do you base your opinion? What is the reason for
that opinion?

A. I base that opinion on the principles of ethics and morals
contained in the oath of Hippocrates. I think it should be ob-
vious that a state cannot follow a physician around in his daily
administration to see that the moral responsibility inherent therein
is properly carried out. This moral responsibility that controls
or should control the conduct of a physician should be inculcated
into the minds of physicians just as moral responsibility of other
sorts, and those principles are clearly depicted or enunciated in
the oath of Hippocrates with which every physician should be
acquainted.

Q. Is the oath of Hippocrates the Golden Rule in the United
States and to your knowledge throughout the world?

A. According to my knowledge it represents the Golden Rule
of the medical profession. It states how one doctor would like
to be treated by another doctor in case he were ill. And in that
way how a doctor should treat his patient or experimental sub-
jects. He should treat them as though he were serving as a sub-
ject.

Q. Several of the defendants have pointed out in this case that
the oath of Hippocrates is obsolete today. Do you follow that
opinion ?

A. I do not. The moral imperative of the oath of Hippocrates
I believe is necessary for the survival of the scientific and tech-
nical philosophy of medicine.

V ^ V V V

2. GERMAN MEDICAL PROFESSION
a. Introduction

The position of the German medical profession under the Hitler
regime was the subject of argument by both prosecution and
defense. The prosecution discussed the matter in the early part
of its opening statement (vol. I, p. 29 if.) . Selections from the argu-
mentation of the defense on this point have been taken from the
final plea for the defendant Blome and from the closing brief for
the defendant Rostock. These appear on pages 86 to 90.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR
DEFENDANT BLOME *

# ^ :1c # %

Furthermore, I have another matter at heart, especially in my
capacity as defense counsel for this defendant : Blome was Deputy

* Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp. 10972-10994.

Reich Physicians’ Leader ; he will, therefore, to a certain degree,
easily be regarded as the representative of the German medical
profession during the Hitler regime. Now, there is great danger
that the entire German medical profession will be identified with
its former leader, Dr. Conti, and with the crimes he was charged
with during this trial ; the German medical profession fears that
those crimes which, in fact, were committed by individual doctors,
who may have been rightly charged, are to be taken as typical
of the entire medical profession. Indeed, during the last months
we could hear in the press and on the radio that the entire med-
ical profession was here in the prisoners’ dock; unfortunately, by
thus generalizing, the matter was presented as though the entire
medical profession was corrupt and that the majority of Ger-
man physicians had committed such crimes or at least ap-
proved them, as stated here in the indictment at the trial. This
conception is wrong and unjust. The German medical profession
numbered about 80,000 members and if we add the Wehrmacht
physicians and the official physicians, one arrives at about 100,000
physicians. Now let us compare with this total number the small
number of physicians and researchers here in the dock. There are
altogether 20 men. Of what importance is such an insignificant
number for the judging of the entire profession? If out of 5,000
German physicians one single person committed a crime, it is
impossible to draw a conclusion from these few exceptions re-
garding the behavior and morals of the whole class. And even if
we suppose that perhaps another few hundred physicians and re-
searchers not here in the dock had taken part in the “experi-
ments on human beings” and in the “euthanasia action”, the
number of guilty persons in comparison with the total number
of the entire profession is still too small to entitle one to con-
sider the entire profession as criminal, and morally inferior
because some individuals committed a wrong.

There is yet another point of view. It stands to reason that
not all experiments on human beings can be excused and justified,
not even during a time of total warfare and under a dictatorship,
and no decent person would ever think of excusing the way and
manner in which the Hitler State carried out the “Euthanasia
Program.” However, it is an incontestable fact that large-scale
experiments on human beings cannot altogether be avoided and
are, in fact, carried out throughout the whole world, and that
there are different viewpoints concerning the problem of eu-
thanasia, even to a limited extent in the circles of conscientious
physicians when this is carried out on a proper legal basis, and
when, in addition, full precautions are taken to prevent abuses. It
must not be overlooked that the deterioration of the medical

profession claimed in connection with this trial is connected ex-
clusively with the problem of experiments on human beings and
with euthanasia, but that no accusations are made against the
professional practice of the German physicians in any other re-
spects ; there are especially no accusations referring to the
relationship between the sick patient and the physician whom he
had chosen as a helper and confidant to restore his health. This
confidence in the attending physician felt by the patient has re-
mained completely untouched by this trial.

We Germans have our own opinion about our physicians, we
know their conscientiousness and willingness to render help; es-
pecially during the war we have been able to observe and appre-
ciate their readiness to sacrifice themselves; we know that the
good qualities that made the German physicians and researchers
a model in former decades were not lost during Hitler’s time, and
it would be a pity if the abuses, which have been revealed and
proved by this trial, should serve to undermine the confidence of
the German people in their physicians and expose them to the con-
tempt of all civilized nations.

Individual researchers, who out of ambition or a passion for
research did not value a human being’s life more than that of a
rabbit, should not be considered representative of the German
physicians’ profession, nor should those physicians of the con-
centration camps, who for lack of a conscience or for some other
wicked reason gave fatal injections to prisoners or tortured them
to death, be regarded as representative of the German medical
profession. No. Representative of a model German physician dur-
ing Hitler’s time, too, is the non-political, practicing physician,
who, even if he did perhaps formally belong to the Party, strongly
opposed from the bottom of his heart all kinds of violence and
intolerance, who is closely bound to his nation and its needs, the
practicing physician who cared for his patients in the most devoted
manner day after day and night after night during the time of
total war and fearful bombardments, which is especially hard
for a physician; or who as military physician served at the front
far from home, from his practice, from his family, fairly sharing
all the hardships, dangers, and privations with his soldiers. And
the surgeon who, as director of his clinic, operated and cured
and helped from morning till night wherever he could help without
having time to breathe, let alone to take part in political activity,
he also is representative of the model German physician during
Hitler’s time too.

I do not know what verdict you will arrive at respecting one
or the other of these defendants; but, as defense counsel of the
former Deputy Reich Physicians’ Leader, I beg you to make

it clear by your verdict that in judging the defendant, if you must
condemn him, you do not condemn and defame the entire German
medical profession, but that the abuses which were committed
were individual acts such as, perhaps, happened in all professions
during Hitler’s time without necessitating a condemnation of the
entire profession. These were individual acts arising perhaps
partly from personal criminal tendencies of individual fanatics,
partly from being connected with the excesses of a total war in a
dictatorship of unscrupulous violence.

If beside the 23 defendants there is a 24th sitting in the dock,
invisible to our eye, he is not of the German medical profession
but the SS spirit of Himmler and of a dozen other murderers of
millions of people. This spirit might have led a fanatic to forget
his professional ethics and to commit crimes. But the entire
medical profession remained sound and conscious of its duty.

May your verdict not completely rob the German people of
their confidence in their physicians but restore it to them, and
I have no doubt that after the present crisis has been overcome
and in more normal circumstances, the German medical profes-
sion will prove to its people that as a body it never forgot nor
will ever forget the professional ethical commandments of the
Hippocratic oath.

* * * ❖ ❖ * *

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT ROSTOCK

Introduction

Mr. President, your Honors:

The great English historian and sociologist, Thomas Carlyle,
once said, “Your life, and were you the humblest of human beings,
is not a wild dream but a lofty fact.” I do not want to speak to
you in this courtroom without first recalling this saying and
thereby seeing before my eyes the picture of the great number
of our fellow human beings whose lives have really become a wild
dream. The fact on which this trial is based, that defenseless hu-
man beings were used by doctors of my country for experiments
and in part died after suffering tortures, cannot be denied. I, my-
self, would doubt the clarity of my judgment as a German jurist if
I did not realize that general human rights, such as the fundamen-
tal standards anchored in all civilized nations, have been violated
thereby. Medical science should bring help and healing to suf-
fering humanity. I am proud to state that it was German doctors
who, in the last century, saved millions of human beings from

the most serious and fatal diseases by their research. Let me
remind you only of names such as Robert Koch, Emil von Behring,
Paul Ehrlich, Theodor Billroth, and August Bier, or medicines
such as Germanin, atabrine, Salvarsan, diphtheria serum, tetanus
serum, and many others. If it were possible to achieve such de-
cisive results in any other way, this would only confirm the actual
truth, that no one, no matter how highly placed and no matter
how important his aims, has the right to lower other human
beings to the level of guinea pigs by force. How could a man ven-
ture to dispose in that way of the life and health of his fellow
men, be they ever so humble? It seems to me that this involves
a fundamental contradiction to the duty of the doctor, a violation
of the dignity of the individual, and a presumption which cannot
remain without horrible results. There may be doubtful cases,
there may be borderline cases, but the solution of these questions
can be based on only one principle, which is that all creatures in
human form have an equal right to life and health. Humanity
would be in a sad state if again and again there were not volun-
teers from the ranks of physicians and laymen who made them-
selves available for experiments, conscious of their contribution
toward saving and healing other human beings. But how can a
man dare simply to designate others to suffer and die, when they,
too, like to live and be free from want and fear, just like he
himself? * * *

3. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

a. Introduction

The practice of medical experimentation upon human beings
in other countries was brought out by the defense in an effort
to show that the medical experimentation in which these de-
fendants engaged was not criminal. Extracts from the argumenta-
tion of the defense have been selected from the closing briefs for
the defendants Karl Brandt and Ruff. These appear below on
pages 90 to 93. From the evidence on this question, the fol-
lowing appear below on pages 95 to 121 : Selections from defense
documents, followed by extracts from the cross-examination of
one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses Dr. Andrew C. Ivy and
an extract from the cross-examination of the defendant Rose.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT
* * * * * * *

Reference has furthermore been made to the extraordinarily
large number of persons available for experiments. With regard

to the experiments made and on the basis of the evidence of this
trial, experiments on a large scale have been made only in rare
cases, and these may be compared in size with experiments on
a large scale outside of Germany, as they were made even in
peacetime; reference is made once more to the malaria experi-
ment. (Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1.)

If one considers the number of versons sentenced to death
who were subjected to experiments, the number is comparable to
those eleven condemned persons for the poison experiment in
Manila. ( Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59.)

One should compare, among others, the plague experiments by
Strong in 1912 on 900 convicts, including an experiment on 42
persons some of whom were persons sentenced to death, and the
typhus experiments by Hamdi on 153 persons. ( Becker-Freyseng
60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59.)

If the number of condemned persons used for experiments in
these proceedings appears high, it should be taken into consid-
eration that the number of persons sentenced to death under
the laws of war is also unusually high. For the protection of the
country, criminal laws are, during wartime, applied more rigor-
ously in all countries in order to guarantee safety at home during
the absence of the male population at the front. The number of
ordinary criminals who have been punished on account of acts
committed by taking advantage of war conditions, and especially
of the blackout, is already unusually high; it is, therefore, not
even necessary to include herein the persons sentenced for po-
litical crimes.

In this connection the viewpoint of the English scholar Mellenby
of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine deserves
special consideration. (Becker-Freyseng 60, Becker-Freyseng Ex.
58.) In the well-known medical journal “The Lancet” of 1 De-
cember 1946, this doctor quotes particularly the political condi-
tions in Germany as decisive and as an excuse for the accused
persons. One may not, therefore, subsequently refer to the general
conditions in Germany during the war years in order to judge
the acts committed during this time more severely.

The number of human guinea pigs used in the experiments
alleged by the prosecution is about 2,000. The number of human
guinea pigs known to the defense from published data amounts
to more than 11,000 persons. If among those, minor experiments
are also to be found, it may be supposed that the experiments
published contain only the material fit to be known to the public.
Publications show the results but not the sacrifices and undesira-
ble incidents. That which the defense can present is not the
result of an exhausting criminal investigation.

841584 — 49—7

Looking at only these experiments which were considered fit
for publication, one cannot possibly come to the conclusion that
they were made only with volunteers. I refer in this connection
to the compilation of experiments in Document Karl Brandt 117,
Karl Brandt Exhibit 103, namely 32 experiments on at least
1,580 persons: they are experiments on persons sentenced to
death, prisoners and soldiers, women and girls; the experiments
are often carried out in such a way that it cannot be presumed
the subjects volunteered.

Voluntary service of the human guinea pigs has not been
claimed either; only in two cases has it specifically been pointed
out. The volunteers in one of these experiments were medical
students. Outstanding in this document are 13 experiments with
at least 223 children. One cannot assume that the parents had
given their consent. In this connection reference is made to Docu-
ment Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Exhibit 29, regarding the
experiments of Professor McCance.

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT RUFF

* * * * * * *

Experiments which time and again have been described in
international literature without meeting any opposition do not
constitute a crime from the medical point of view. For nowhere
did a plaintiff arise from the side of the responsible professional
organization, or from that of the administration of justice, to
denounce as criminal the experiments described in literature. On
the contrary, the authors of those reports on their human experi-
ments gained general recognition and fame; they were awarded
the highest honors; they gained historical importance. And in
spite of all this, are they supposed to have been criminals? No!
In view of the complete lack of written legal norms, the physician,
who generally knows only little about the law, has to rely on
and refer to the admissibility of what is generally recognized to
be admissible all over the world.

The defense is convinced that the Tribunal, when deciding this
problem without prejudice, will first study the many experiments
performed all over the world on healthy and sick persons, on
prisoners and free people, on criminals and on the poor, even
on children and mentally ill persons, in order to see how the
medical profession in its international totality answers the ques-
tion of the admissibility of human experiments, not only in theory
but also in practice.

It is psychologically understandable that German research

workers today will, if possible, have nothing- to do with human
experiments and will try to avoid them, or would like to describe
them as inadmissible even if before 1933 they were perhaps
of the opposite opinion. However, experiments performed in 1905-
1912 by a highly respected American in Asia for the fight against
the plague, which made him famous all over the world, cannot
and ought not to be labelled as criminal because a Blome is sup-
posed to have performed the same experiments during the Hitler
period (which, in fact, however, were not performed at all) ;
and experiments for which, before 1933, a foreign research work-
er, the Englishman Ross, was awarded the Nobel prize for his
malaria experiments, do not deserve to be condemned only be-
cause a German physician performed similar experiments during
the Hitler regime. One should not say that experiments, where
different diseases or different drugs from those referred to in this
trial were dealt with, have no connection with the charges of
this indictment because of this difference and that, therefore,
they are of no importance as evidence. In the foreground there
stands the basic question as to the conditions under which such-
experiments are permissible; whether they refer to plague or
typhus, to tuberculosis or jaundice, is a secondary question which
concerns the medical expert more than the jurist.

Decisive for this trial is the question whether the conditions
under which experiments were performed by the defendants were
those internationally recognised as for the experiments which
were performed by foreign research workers with the approval
of all civilized humanity.

If one wants to arrive at a just and satisfactory decision, one
must disregard the fact that here German research workers are
accused. On the contrary, one has to strive toward obtaining an
international basis to represent the present international opinion
on human experiments, one which for decades, if not for cen-
turies, will form the criterion for the permissibility of human
experiments. We, as jurists, can only render a service to the de-
velopment of medical science and therewith to humanity if we
endeavor to establish an incontrovertibly clear view of today’s
international opinion on human experiments, whether these ex-
periments were performed by Germans or by foreigners.

c. Evidence

Defense Documents

Doc. No.

Karl Brandt 1

Becker-Freyseng

B ecker- F rey sen g
60a

Karl Brandt 117

Def. Ex. No.

Karl Brandt Ex. 1

Becker-Freyseng
Ex. 58

Becker-Freyseng
Ex. 59

Description of Document

Karl Brandt
Ex. 103

Extract from “Life” Mag-
azine concerning malaria
experiments on convicts in
U. S. penitentiaries.

Statement of Professor Dr.
Hans Luxenburger and Dr.
Hans Halbach concerning
the report on experiments
on human beings in world
literature (Becker-F rey-
seng 60a, Becker-Freyseng
Ex. 59).

Extracts from report on
experiments on human be-
ings in world literature ;
excerpts from various
newspapers and medical
weeklies.

Excerpts from the disser-
tation “Infection Experi-
ments on Human Beings”
by Alfred Heilbrunn of
the Hygiene Institute of
the Wuerzburg University,
1937, concerning experi-
ments on human beings in
other countries.

Testimony

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. Andrew
C. Ivy.

Extract from the testimony of defendant Rose ....

Page

103

110

118

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT I
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT I

EXTRACT FROM "LIFE" MAGAZINE CONCERNING MALARIA EXPERI-
MENTS ON CONVICTS IN UNITED STATES PENITENTIARIES

Extract from “Life”, Vol. 18, Nr. 23 of June U, 1945

Prison Malaria

Convicts expose themselves to disease so doctors can study it.

In three United States penitentiaries men who have been im-
prisoned as enemies of society are now helping science fight
another enemy of society. At the United States Penitentiary in
Atlanta, the Illinois State Penitentiary, and New Jersey State
Reformatory some 800 convicts volunteered to be infected with
malaria so medical men can study the disease. The experimenters,
who are directed by the Office of Scientific Research and Develop-
ment, have found prison life ideal for controlled laboratory work
with humans. Their subjects all eat the same food, sleep the same
hours, and are never far away. The prisoners are not pardoned
or paroled for submitting to infection.

Prison malaria experiments underline the fact that malaria
is still a very serious medical problem. In the United States there
are 1,000,000 cases a year. The existing drugs (mainly quinine
and atabrine) control malaria but cannot keep it from recurring
long after the original infection. The goal of malaria research is
to find a new drug which will cure the disease permanently.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BECKER-FREYSENG 60
BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 58

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER AND DR. HANS
HALBACH CONCERNING THE REPORT ON EXPERIMENTS ON
HUMAN BEINGS IN WORLD LITERATURE (SEE ALSO
BECKER-FREYSENG 60a, BECKER-FREYSENG EX. 59)

Experiments on Human Beings as Viewed in World Literature

I, Professor Dr. med. Hans Luxenburger, specialist in nervous
diseases, resident at 35, Liebigstrasse, Munich, and I, Dr. ing.
and Dr. med. Erich Hans Halbach, physician, of Prien-Chiemsee,
have first been advised that we shall render ourselves liable to
punishment if we give a false affidavit. We declare under oath
that we have ascertained the correctness of the enclosed excerpts

of scientific works and books, that is to say, with respect to the
excerpts bearing the following numbers: 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 54 * * * by com-
parison with the original; with respect to the numbers 2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 19, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 by certified photostatic copies,
copies, translations or excerpts submitted to us by attorney at law
Dr. Edmund Tipp.

We made the report “Experiments on Human Beings as Viewed
in World Literature” to the best of our knowledge for presenta-
tion as evidence before the American Military Tribunal I in the
Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.

Munich, 14 April 1947

[Signed] Prof. Dr. Hans Luxenburger
Dr. Hans Halbach

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BECKER-FREYSENG 60a
BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 59

EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS
IN WORLD LITERATURE; EXCERPTS FROM VARIOUS
NEWSPAPERS AND MEDICAL WEEKLIES

Excerpt from the Certified Translation

Author : Ladell, W.S.S. (Med. Research Committee).

Title: Effects after Taking Small Quantities of Sea Water. An
experimental study. (From the research staff, National Hos-
pital, Queen Square).

Quotation: The Lancet No. 6267 (October 1943) page 441.

Purpose: Contribution to the physiology of persons who received
the same food and drinking water as shipwrecked persons in
lifeboats. Studies regarding the effect of the drinking of sea
water on the chloride balance, urea excretion, urine amount,
and loss of body weight of shipwrecked persons.

Procedure:

1. Three experimental persons, after one day without water,
drank 240 cc. fresh water and 180 cc. sodium chloride 3.5
percent solution daily for 4 ^ days.

2. Ten experimental persons, after one day without water,
drank 540 cc. fresh water and 180 cc. sea water daily for 5
days; the following 4 days, 5 of these experimental persons
drank 60 cc. fresh water daily, the following 4 days the
other 5 experimental persons drank 60 cc. fresh water and

180 cc. sea water daily.

3. Eleven experimental persons, after one day without
water, drank 540 cc. fresh water daily for 5 days; 6 of these
experimental persons received 60 cc. water and 180 cc. sea
water daily for the following 4 days.

4. Two experimental persons, after one day without water,
drank 370 cc. fresh water each for 2 days, for the following
3 days daily 240 cc. fresh water each, plus 400 cc. sea water,
the next 36 hours only 600 cc. sea water.

All experimental persons moreover took only sea-rescue
emergency rations in limited quantities, with 1 gr. sodium
chloride at the most.

Experimental persons: 17 experimental persons from a naval hos-
pital submitted “voluntarily to the severe experimental con-
ditions”, without physical injury.

Excerpt from Certified Report 19

Author: Cameron and Karunaratne.

Quotation: Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology U 2, 13 (1936).

Purpose: Studies of the poisonous effect of carbontetrachloride
on human beings (report).

Experiment: Carbontetrachloride is administered to healthy crim-
inals before their execution. The effect of the poison on the
liver is determined by way of an autopsy. (Therapeutical
normal dosis 3.0 cc. : maximum dose 5.0 cc.)

2 test persons receive twice 6 cc. (Nichols and Hampton)

3 test persons receive twice 4 cc. (Docherty and Nichols)

2 test persons receive twice 5 cc.* (Docherty and Burgess)

1 test person receive twice 5 and 3 cc.* (Docherty and

Burgess)

3 test persons receive twice 10 cc. (Leach, Haughwout and
Ash)

* with subsequent laxative

Result: In some cases changes in the liver, in others none.

Test persons: 11 criminals sentenced to death.

Excerpt from Original 20

Author: Lt. Col. Kendall, A.E., Lt. Col. Dickinson, S.P., Lt. Col.
Forrester, J.S.

Title: The Treatment of Bacillary Dysentery in Chinese Soldiers
with Sulfaguanidine and Sulfadiazine.

Quotation: American Journal of Medical Science 211,103 (Jan-
uary, 1946).

Purpose: Page 103: “The opportunity to make controlled observa-
tions of the efficacy of sulfaguanidine and sulfadiazine in the
treatment of acute bacillary dysentery has recently presented
itself to us. In an Army general hospital in northeastern
India caring for Chinese and American troops, we have ob-
served many hundreds of cases within the past year. It early
became apparent that we were dealing with a relatively
benign form of the disease with a uniformly favorable out-
come. Under these circumstances, it seemed both justifiable
and important to utilize the opportunity to determine to what
extent sulfonamide therapy shortened the course of the dis-
ease or otherwise favorably influenced its course.”

Experiment : “The present communication describes the results
of such an investigation, carried out in the 7-month period
from June through December 1943, in which the results
of treatment were compared in 334 Chinese patients with
bacillary dysentery, one-third received sulfaguanidine and
one-third, sulfadiazine.”

Results: Page 109: “Neither drug shortened the course of the
disease, ameliorated the symptoms, nor altered the eventual
outcome.”

Test persons: 334 Chinese soldiers patients.

Excerpt from the Original Report No. 23

Author: See below.

Title: Trench Fever Report of Commission Medical Research
Committee, American Red Cross, University Press 1918.
Trench Fever, Bruce, Final Report of the War Trench Fever
Investigation Committee, Journal of Hygiene 1921, page 258.

Quotation: Reference in Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Patho-
genic Micro-organisms. VIII/1, 1302, (1930).

Purpose: “The American Commission (President: Strong, Mem-
bers: Swift, Ople McNeal, Beetjew, Pappenheimer, Peacoc,
Rapport) interpreted its task in a preponderantly practical
way, trying to clarify the methods of transmission and to
safeguard the troops from infection. The English Commis-
sion (President: Bruce. Members: Harvey, Bacot, Byam,
Trench, Arkwright, Fletcher, Hird, Plimmer) set itself the
task of investigating the disease completely and thoroughly,
particularly also the causative agent.”

Experiment: “The experiments of the English- American Com-
missions, those of transmitting Quintana with the entire
blood were largely positive, and the intravenous injection
showed better results than the intra-muscular and partic-
ularly the subcutaneous.

“Experiments for the transmission of lice were carried
out by the English and American Commissions on the two
bases: The bite of lice and the rubbing in of infected lice
secretion.’ ’

The first announcement of the American Commission on
successful transmission of lice came on 14 February 1918;
the first successful experiment on the transmission of lice

of the English Commission

Transmission Experiments :

with Plasma
with Serum

with red blood corpuscles
with blood from skin which
has been scratched

Infection:

with secretion of lice
with sputum and saliva
with urine of patients
rubbed into the skin
through the conjunctiva
through the urethra
through the mouth
through food and drink

on 9 March.

positive in 7 cases
negative

positive 3 times in 4 experiments
negative

positive

positive once in 4 experiments

positive 5 times in 8 experiments

positive

not successful

Experimental persons: Approximately at least 100.

Result: Clarification of the etiology and the methods of trans-
mission.

Excerpts from the Original Report No. 25

Author: Hamdi.

Title: Results of Immunization Tests against Typhus.

Quotation: Journal for Hygiene 1916, 82. Quoted in Kolle-Kraus-
Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-organisms VIII/2,
1204 (1930).

Purpose: See title.

Experiment: “By means of virulent blood of patients, Hamdi was
in a position to check on a large number of persons who had
been treated before partly with the blood of patients (80),
partly with the blood of reconvalescents (54), partly with
a mixture of both blood types (19) * * *. Upon the infec-
tion with the blood of patients, none of the thrice protectively

vaccinated persons became ill, two out of seven persons who
had been protectively vaccinated only twice became ill.”

Experimental persons: “In the first place, these experiments
concerned persons who had been sentenced to death for
crimes,”

“* * * large number * *

Result: Effectiveness of protective vaccination was proved.

Excerpt from Original Report No. 26

Author: Doerr, R.

Title: Pappataci Fever and Dengue.

Quotation: Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-
organisms VIII/1, 501 et seq. (1930).

Purpose: Research in Etiology and Transmission of Pappataci
Fever.

Experiment: II. Pappataci Fever. Page 508: “The organism cir-
culates in the blood of the patients during the first 24 hours
after the beginning of the fever. Its presence is betrayed
only from the pathogenicity (infectivity) of the blood for
healthy and receptive (not immune) human beings. If such
an individual were to be injected with the blood of a sub-
cutaneously feverish person he would fall ill * * * of a
fever attack typical in every respect. This experiment was
at first successfully performed by Doerr (1908), later by
Doerr and Russ in the Hercegovina, by Birt in Malta, by
Tedeschi and Napolitani in Italy, by Lepine (Three Days
Fever in Syria, Bull. Soc. path. exot. 20, 251, 1927) in Syria.
The experiment was repeated by Kligler and Ashner in
Palestine and furnished positive results in about 35 single
experiments. In this connection it must be considered that,
almost without exception, the inoculated persons lived in
areas free from epidemics and phlebotomus so that an acci-
dental natural infection was out of the question from the
beginning.”

Page 513: “But Whittingham and Rook brought infected
phlebotomus from Malta to England. They succeeded in
breeding imagines from the eggs of flies laid in England
and infecting human beings by the bites of these flies, that
is producing fever attacks. In this way, the question of where
the virus of the Pappataci fever remains over the winter
would apparently be answered.”

Experimental persons: About 35.

Result: Determination and confirmation of the etiology and the
method of transmission.

100

Report After the Original No. 33

Author: Goldberger, Joseph (USA Public Health Service 1914).

Quoted from: Bernhard Jaffe, Scientists in America, Overseas
Edition Incorporated, New York 1944, page 401 et seq.

Purpose: Proof that pellagra is a deficiency disease.

Experiment: One-sided deficiency diet (restricted in quality)
which caused 7 severe cases of pellagra.

Experimental persons: 12 voluntary prisoners of the Rankin-
Prison-Farm to whom their freedom was promised after sur-
vival of the experiment, with the agreement of the governor
of the state. All survived and were set free.

Excerpt from Original UU

Author: Fraenkel, E.

Title: Report on Infectious Colpitis Epidemica Observed in Chil-
dren.

Quoted from: Arch. Path. Anath. a. Physiol. (Virchow) 99, 251

( 1885 ).

Purpose: Page 263: Confirmation of the suspicion of an “infec-
tion of the conjunctiva caused by vaginal secretion.” Animal
tests showed negative results.

Experiment: Page 263: “By chance I had the possibility to inocu-
late the vaginal secretion (of sick women) into the con-
junctiva of 3 children patients who were in the final stage
of the disease (two were suffering from atrophia infantum,
the third from cheesy pneumonia) * *

Page 264: “The two pus-producing patients had suffered
for several weeks from their colpitis/’

Result: 2 children died — l 1 /^ and 2 days after the inoculation
without showing any reactions. The third child contracted
conjunctivitis, which healed after treatment, and died on the
10th day.

Experimental subjects: 3 moribund children.

Excerpt from Original Jj8

Author: Current Comment. Summary of a study taken from
Epidemiology Unit No. 50.

Title: Cholera Studies in Calcutta.

Quotation: Journal of the American Medical Association 130,
790 (1946).

Aim: Page 790: “* * * control experiment on the treatment of
cholera * *

Experiment: Page 790: “* * * in a highly endemic or epidemic
area of India, patients were taken in rotation as they were

101

admitted to the hospital and assigned to the following group
according to the treatment given:

A, sulfaguanidine ;

B, control ;

C, sulf adiacine ;

D, penicillin ; and

E, sulfadiacine and penicillin combined.

All patients received supportive treatment in the form of

i.v. hypertonic and isotonic solution of sodium chloride and
oral stimulants as indicated of offset dehydration, emaciation,
and circulatory failure.”

Result : Page 791:

1. Patient treated with plasma in addition to chemo-
therapy: death rate: zero.

2. Patients receiving chemo-therapy alone: death rate 1.1
percent.

3. Control group consisting of all patients who had not
received treatment or who had insufficient treatment or only
supportive treatment: death rate 38.3 percent.

“The dramatic effect of plasma is still more evident if the
shock or collapse cases are segregated and tabulated. There
were, in all, 78 severely ill patients in that group. The results
in the group showed a mortality rate of 95.8 percent for the
control group, 15.8 percent for the chemo-therapy, and no
mortality in the group treated with plasma plus chemo-
therapy.”

Experimental subjects:

No numbers given, presumably several hundred, nonvoluntary
as clinical serial tests.

102

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 117
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 103

EXCERPTS FROM THE DISSERTATION "INFECTION EXPERIMENTS ON
HUMAN BEINGS" BY ALFRED HEILBRUNN OF THE HYGIENE
INSTITUTE OF THE WUERZBURG UNIVERSITY, 1937,
CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS
IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Excerpt from “Infection Experiment on Human Beings ”

Inaugural Dissertation for the Attainment of the Degree of a
Doctor of Medicine at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University of Ber-
lin;

submitted by: Alfred Heilbrunn,
Hofgeismar (Hesse Nassau) 1937
From the Hygiene Institute of Wuerzburg University. (Dean:
Professor M. Knorr)

Printed by: F. W. Gadow and Son, Hildburghausen.

(The pamphlet is in the library of the Erlangen University.)

MALARIA

Infection experiments with malaria take up much space in
literature. The desire to acquire an exact knowledge of this dis-
ease, so important to various countries, makes this fact appear
quite understandable. Therefore, numerous experiments on human
beings were carried out even before the discovery of the plas-
modium malariae and without knowledge of the transmission by
anopheles. In the following enumeration, these experiments will
be quoted chronologically, thus giving a picture of how the knowl-
edge of the etiology, the infectiousness and the transmission of
malaria, was discovered through infection experiments on human
beings.

1. (LV 7) * * * SALISBURY (quoted from Mannaberg:
Malaria Diseases, Vienna 1899. Nothnagel, Special Pathology and
Therapy II 2.) * * * Experiment: * * * Two * * * men * * *
after 12 and 14 days, fell ill with typical tertiana. The same experi-
ment in a second case again turned out a positive result.

2. (LV 8) * * * DOCHMANN (Dochmann: The Doctrine of
febris intermittens. St. Petersburg Medical Journal. No. 20, quoted
from Virchow-Hirsch 1880) * * *. His experiments * * *. 1st
experiment: He inoculated * * * a healthy 30-year-old man sub-
cutaneously with * * * feverish chills.

* * * * * * *

(LV — Index of Literature Page I-IX)

103

2d experiment: * * * Inoculation of three men * * *

1st man: * * * fever

2d man: Only passing indisposition.

3d man: Stayed completely well.

3d experiment: Inoculation of a woman * * *

* * * shivering fits, fever, * * *

3. (LV 9) * * * GERHARD (Gerhard: quoted from Olpp:
Famous Tropical Physicians Publ. Quello, Tuebingen) * * * trans-
mitted * * * malaria from a sick person to a healthy one through
subcutaneous blood injections.

*******

4. (LV 10) * * * MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI (Marchiafava
and Celli: New Research on Malaria Infection, Progress of Med-
icine, 1885, 787, 795) * * * Five experiments were carried out
on patients suffering from nervous disorders.

1. Experiment: Experimental subject a 17-year-old man with
myelitis transversa * * *

* * * progress of fever

* * * spasm * * *

* * * swelling of the spleen * * *

An examination of the blood gave an excellent confirmation of
the malaria nature of the fever attacks * * *

2. Experiment: Experimental subject a 68-year-old man with
hemichorea.

*******
Characteristic attack of malaria, * * * moderate spleen tumor.

3. Experiment: Experimental subject a 32-year-old man with
multiple sclerosis.

*******

* * * characteristic attacks, spleen tumor.
*******

4. Experiment: Experimental subject a 47-year-old man with
multiple sclerosis.

*******
No pathological manifestations in the blood picture.

104

5. Experiment: Experimental subject a 23-year-old man with
poliomyelit. ant.

* * * * * *

*f* 'fc ■j^0Y0j* ^

These experiments showed that —

(1) in the blood of malaria patients, corpuscles were often
found in the interior of the red blood corpuscles in amoeboic
movement and susceptible to coloring with aniline.

(2) the disease is transmissible, and that the same amoeboic
formations were found in the blood of the experimental subjects
as in the blood of the donors. The scientists carried on the work
on the basis of these results and came to the conclusion that
these amoeboic corpuscles were the morbific agents of malaria.
In order to be quite sure they made another inoculation experi-
ment.

Experimental subject was a 43-year-old man with paralysis
agitans.

*******

* * * continual subnormal temperature accompanied by bad
general condition . . .

* * * plasmodia moving in the blood * * *

5. (LV 11) The experiments of MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI
are confirmed by a whole series of other Italian authors. I found
the experiments in the book of MANNABERG (page 7) in the
form of tables and reproduce them here in the same way. (vide
pages 10-13) * * *

(LV 12) CELLI (Celli: quoted from Mannaberg (7) had sev-
eral persons in the Roman hospital S. Spirito drink water from
the Pontine Marshes and from the marshes near Rome and found
that these persons did not contract malaria.

(LV. 13) BRANCALEONE (Brancaleone: quoted from Manna-
berg (7) repeated the same experiment in Sicily with the same
negative result.

(LV. 14) ZERI (Zeri: quoted from Mannaberg (7) had 9 per-
sons, for a period of 5-20 days, drink 1.5- litres of water each
(in toto 10-60 1) from a malaria district; he let 16 persons inhale
the same water when sprayed. He administered it to 5 persons
per rectum: none of the experimental persons got malaria. Also

105

SALOMONE MARIO (LV. 15: Mario quoted from Mannaberg
(7) registered the same negative result.

^ * * * # * *

No results were found in support of the water theory. It only
remained to examine whether mosquitoes transmitted malaria
through their sting.

6. (LV. 18) * * * BASTIANIELI (vide Mannaberg (7) * * *
To imitate the sting of the mosquito he did nothing but insert
the point of the Pravaz syringe, moistened with malaria blood,
under the skin. That sufficed in some cases to produce a severe
case of malaria.

5fC * * * *

7. (LV. 20) * * * 1895 ROSS (Ross, page 9) let 4 mosquitoes
of the species anopheles suck themselves full on the Indian Abdul
Radir who had numerous crescent-shaped formations in his blood,
and on 25 May he let the twenty-year-old Lutschmann, who was
stated never to have been sick before, be stung by them. On 5
June the latter contracted fever which lasted for 3 days.

^ * * 4 * ♦ *

8. (LV. 23) In 1917 WAGNER-JAUREGG (Wagner- Jauregg :
Psych, neurol. weekly 1918) introduced artificial malaria infec-
tion to cure progressive paralysis. Following this, now experiments
were initiated.

9. (LV. 25) F. MUEHLENS and W. KIRSCHBAUM (Muehlens
and Kirschbaum: Further Parasitological Observations on Artifi-
cial Malaria Infection of Paralytics. Archives for Ship and Trop-
ical Hygiene 1924, Vol. 28, No. 4, page 131) in 1924 report on
artificial malaria infection for the treatment of paralysis.

* * * * * * *

DIPHTHERIA

* * * * sfe * *

Despite the Behring therapeutic serum and the protective vac-
cine developed by Behring, the field of diphtheria immunity has
always interested various research experts. Their efforts were all
directed toward developing safe, active immunity.

106

48. (LV. 187) As early as 1902 DZIERGOWSKY (Dziergowsky,
quoted from Seeligmann and Happe: The Position of the Active
Protective Vaccine against Diphtheria. Result of Hygiene 11,
1930) reported on several experiments to protect human beings
against diphtheria by a number of subcutaneous injections with
a gradually increasing dose of Diphtheria-Toxin.
*******

49. (LV. 138) BLUMENAU (Blumenau, page 137) worked on
this principle in 1909. He soaked cotton wads in undiluted toxin
and placed them alternately in the right and then in the left nostril
of children from 3-12 years of age. He attained an antitoxin titer
increase of up to 10 A.E. per ccm. of serum.

50. (LV. 139) BANDI and GAGNONI worked with killed bac-
teria (Bandi and Gagnoni, page 137). They injected measles
convalescents with a 4-day-old crush of diphtheria bacilli cultures
on agar which had been killed at 55° Centigrade * * *.

51. (LV. 141) BOEHME and RIEBOLD (Boehme and Riebold,
One Way of Active Immunization against Diphtheria, Munich
Medical Weekly 1924, 232) were the first to use living diphtheria
bacilli for vaccination of human beings. After extensive experi-
ments on guinea pigs, they proceeded to experiment on human
beings. They used a diphtheria lymph, which they named Diphcu-
tan, a mixture of living, highly toxic diphtheria bacilli cultures in
N a Cl. Sixty-two persons were vaccinated with this lymph with
10-20 scratches each on the upper arm. Those vaccinated were —

22 children from l^-S years of age,

11 children from 6-10 years of age,

17 children from 10-15 years of age,

2 youths from 15-20 years of age, and
9 adults from 20-50 years of age.

St? *1* WL« 4*

V ^ •p ^

52. (LV. 142) EBERHARD (Eberhard, Contributions toward
active Immunization against Diphtheria. Hygiene Journal 105,
page 614) tested 4 different vaccines produced by the Marburger
Behringwerke for their suitability for immunization of humans
and for use in public vaccination stations.

*******

53. (LV. 143) BAYER used the lymph suggested by BOEHME
and RIEBOLD (Bayer, On active Immunization against Diph-
theria. Yearbook of Infant Therapeutics 1925, 273) and vac-
cinated 87 children with it * * *

841684 — 49—8

107

54. (LV. 144) MUELLER and MEYER (Mueller and Meyer,
Diagnosis and Immunization of children threatened with Diph-
theria. Journal of Infant Therapeutics 39, 405, 1925). They also
checked the experiments by BOEHME and RIEBOLD with the
same methods, vaccinated 53 children who had shown a positive
reaction to the SCHICK test.

* * * * * * *

TYPHUS

55. (LV. 149) REITANO (Reitano, quoted from Rontal, Jour-
nal of Bacteriology 1933 III, page 112) vaccinated human beings
with virus contained in dog ticks and produced typhus.

56. (LV. 150) One immunization experiment dating from the
World War cost the lives of 50 Turkish soldiers. In the year 1915
immunization experiments against typhus were to be carried out
in the hospitals of the 3d Turkish Army with inactivated blood
from a diseased person. The doctor concerned took the blood from
typhus convalescents and injected it, as HAMDI (Hamdi, On the
Results of Immunization Experiments against Typhus-Exanthem.
Hygiene Journal, 1916, 235) reports without having inactivated
it, into 120 soldiers. Each received 5 ccm. subcutaneously. One
soldier died after 14 days, others contracted typhus which, how-
ever, progressed in a satisfactory manner. After this the doctor
vaccinated another 310 soldiers in the same way. Of these, 174
became ill and 49 died. On the average the incubation period was
12 days.

* * V * •i' ^

PLAGUE

62. (LV. 165) * * * BULARD (A. F. Bulard, De Moru, The
Oriental Plague, Paris 1839 ) * * *

*******

Experiments continued to be carried out on condemned persons.
On 17 August at 8 o’clock in the morning, 18-year-old Ibrahim
Hassan, who had been condemned to death, was dressed in the
shirt, underwear, and jacket of a person seriously ill with the
plague. Immediately after this he was placed in the bed of one
of the patients which was still warm from the patient’s fever.
Until 21 August there was no sign that even the slightest infection
had taken place. No symptoms of the disease had developed. On
the evening of the same day, however, he complained of a slight
headache, loss of energy started, the blood circulation accel-
erated * * *

108

A Plague Bubo developed in the left groin * * * 25 August:
Further vomiting of dark green matter. The tongue is dry and
lias a slightly brackish appearance. The pulse is light and quick.
Respiration is jerky, the features are distorted. In the night death
occurs.

On 7 August at 8 o’clock in the evening, Mohammed Ben Ali
who has been condemned to death was dressed in the shirt, under-
wear, and jacket of a person seriously ill with the plague. Imme-
diately thereafter he was placed in the patient’s bed. Until the
22d no symptoms of disease. On the morning of the 23d severe out-
break of the disease. Tottering gait, then walking impossible.
Extreme loss of energy, appearance of being seriously ill * * *

^ ^

On 18 August we inoculated a person condemned to death with
blood through 4 vaccinational cuts in the fold of the right arm.
This blood was taken from a head vein of a plague patient who
had been ill for 2 days * * *

On 22 and 30 August a second person, condemned to death, with
a plethoric constitution and of strong build was inoculated with
blood. The first time in a fold of the left arm and in the right
groin area, the second time in the opposite positions. On the
area of the vaccination only the natural reddening and infections
caused by the vaccination instrument appeared, nothing else.

* * 5fC * %

“A third person condemned to death was inoculated with the
fluid taken from a Plague Bubo in the groin and in the shoulder.
This same person had dressed in the clothes of a plague patient
20 days previously and had contracted the plague with all its
severe symptoms. The skin and tissue of this experimental subject
remained refractory towards any absorption of the poison. Even
when the inoculation with blood was repeated 8 days later, no
disease resulted.”

* 5fC * * $ %

SMALLPOX

In 1791, the teacher Plett of Holstein successfully vaccinated
three of his landlord’s children in Starkendorf near Kiel. Later
on when an epidemic occurred they did not contract the disease,
while their brothers and sisters which had not been vaccinated
fell sick.

81. (LV. 220) JENNER started from these premises. (Jenner,
quoted from Paschen, KKr.U., Manual on pathological micro-
organisms, T. VIII, 1, P821). In his first test, he inoculated with

109

variola 16 persons who had suffered from cowpox previously.
They did not fall sick.

In 1796, a milkmaid who suffered from a finger injury con-
tracted an infection when milking a cow sick with cowpox. She
developed a case of cowpox. With the contents of one pustule,
Jenner vaccinated a boy. The boy developed typical vaccine pus-
tules at the vaccination area of his arm. Two weeks later, Jenner
carefully inoculated the boy on both arms with new pustule mat-
ter. No sickness ensued, and a second inoculation also was nega-
tive. Thus, clear proof was furnished that cowpox transmitted
to human beings possessed the same protective value as that pro-
duced in animals.

However, another epidemic was necessary before Jenner's suc-
cess was recognized. In this instance he inoculated 6 children
directly from the cow. They developed a slight infection, and
a subsequent inoculation failed.

The success of Jenner’s experimental infections on human beings
have resulted in a blessing for all mankind inasmuch as his funda-
mental experiments on human beings have caused the extermina-
tion of variola in all countries that have compulsory vaccination.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT
WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY *

*******

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Dr. Sauter: Witness, you are an expert in the field of aviation
medicine?

Witness Dr. Ivy: Yes.

Q. May I ask you what fields within aviation medicine you have
worked on specifically, because my clients, who are recognized
specialists in this field, attach importance to ascertaining pre-
cisely what fields you have worked in particularly?

A. I have worked particularly in the field of decompression or
pressure drop sickness, and I have also worked in the field of
anoxia or exposure to altitude repeatedly at a level of 18,000 feet
to ascertain if that has any effect in the causation of pilots’
fatigue.

Q. At what time did you specifically concern yourself with the
fields you have just named? Was that before the Second World
War, during the Second World War, or was it earlier than that?

A. My interest in these fields of aviation medicine, including
free fall which I did not mention, started in 1939.

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14, 16 June 47,
pp. 9029-9324.

110

Q. Regarding your specific work in this field, Witness, you have
also issued publications. I believe you spoke of two publications.
Did I understand you correctly, or were there more?

A. There were two in the field of decompression sickness. There
was one publication in the field of the effects of repeated exposure
to a mild degree of oxygen lack. My other work has not yet been
published but was submitted in the form of reports to the Com-
mittee on Aviation Medicine of the National Research Council of
the United States.

Q. When were these two papers published of which you just
told us; when, and were they printed by a publishing house? Did
they appear in a journal or a periodical?

A. One appears in the Journal of Aviation Medicine either in
September or October of 1946. The other appears in the Journal
of the American Medical Association in either December or Jan-
uary 1946 or 1947. The publication on the effect of repeated ex-
posure to mild degrees of oxygen lack at altitude appears in the
quarterly bulletin of Northwestern University Medical School
and part of the work, insofar as its effect on the elimination of
the basis in the urine is concerned, appeared in the Journal of
Biological Chemistry around 1944 or 1945, I am not sure of that
date.

Q. Theretofore, Witness, you had thus made no publication in
the field of aviation medicine before the papers of which you just
gave the dates of publication?

A. The question is not clear.

Q. You just gave us the titles of the publications you have
published and when; now I ask whether before the dates you
just gave, you did not have any publications in the field of aviation
medicine ?

A. No. My first research started in 1939.

Q. You, yourself, have carried out experiments too; is that
not so?

A. Yes.

Q. With human experimental subjects, of course?

A. Yes, and on myself.

Q. And with a low pressure chamber?

A. Yes.

Q. Were these frequent experiments, or were the experiments
in which you, yourself, took part only infrequent in number?

A. The experiments in which I took part were infrequent in
number compared to the total number of experiments which I
performed.

Q. Did you take part in these experiments as the director of

111

the experiments, as the person responsible, or were you usually
the experimental subject yourself?

A. I served in both capacities. For example, I have frequently
gone to the altitude of 40,000 feet to study the symptoms of bends
with an intermediate pressure device, which we produced in our
laboratory. I have been to 47,500 feet on three or four occasions,
on one occasion at 52,000 feet for half an hour. I have frequently
been to 18,000 feet without supplemental oxygen in order to
study the effect of the degree of oxygen lack present there for
my ability to perform psycho-motor tests.

Q. Can you tell us approximately during what year you began
these experiments of your own?

A. In 1939.

Q. 1939; did you at this time carry out explosive decompression
experiments too? Witness, one moment please, the English for
that is “explosive decompression.” That is thus the experiment
in which one ascends slowly to a certain height, let us say 8,000
meters, and then all at once suddenly one is brought up to a
height of 15,000 meters ; that is, first slowly up to 8,000 and then
suddenly to, let us say, 15,000 — that is what I understand under
the term “explosive decompression” experiment, and my question
is: whether you also carried out such experiments and if so
when and to what extent?

A. I carried out over one hundred experiments on explosive
decompression in various laboratories on animals, the rabbit, the
dog, the pig, and the monkey. I did not serve as a subject myself
in experiments on explosive decompression, but a student who
was trained with me in physiology, Dr. J. J. Smith, did the first
experiments on explosive decompression in which human subjects
were used, at Wright Field. I am familiar with the work which
Dr. Hitchcock did on this subject at Ohio State University in
which he studied some one hundred students under conditions
of explosive decompression.

Q. To what altitude, Witness; to what maximum altitude did
you carry your own explosive decompression experiments?

A. In animals it was up to 50,000 feet; in the case of human
subjects, the maximum was 47,500 with pressure breathing equip-
ment.

Q. This altitude you reached in your own experiments. Now,
Doctor, it would interest me to know to what maximum altitude
have any experiments in explosive decompression been carried
in America ; what do you know about this maximum altitude ?

A. I believe that 47,500 or slightly above is the maximum.

Q. Witness, do you know the German Physiologist Dr. Rein;
Professor Rein, do you know his name; R-e-i-n from Goettingen?

112

A. Yes.

Q. At the moment he is the Ordinarius for Physiology at
Goettingen, he is a rector at the university and a member of the
Scientific Advisory Committee for the British Zone. On the basis
of your own knowledge, do you consider Professor Rein an au-
thoritative scientist in the field of physiology and aviation med-
icine ?

A. I consider him an authoritative physiologist, I am not ac-
quainted with his work in the field of aviation medicine.

Q. Mr. President, I previously put in evidence — I want to re-
call that now — an expert opinion from this Dr. Rein regarding
Dr. Ruff. (Ruff 5, Ruff Ex. 3.) This expert testimony is from
Professor Rein.

In your own experiments, Witness, you also used conscientious
objectors, is that not so? Did I understand you correctly?

A. Yes, in some of the experiments.

Q. Will you tell us why you used conscientious objectors? Were
they particularly adapted for these experiments; or what was
the reason for you, as one conducting experiments, to use espe-
cially conscientious objectors?

A. It was their duty, their volunteer duty to render public
service. They had nothing else to do but to render public service.
In the experiments in which we used the conscientious objectors,
they could devote their full attention to the experiments. Many
of the subjects, which I have used, have been medical students
or dental students, who besides serving as subjects had to attend
their studies in schools. In the experiments we did on the conscien-
tious objectors, they could not attend school at the same time
and carry on or perform all the tests they were supposed to
perform. For example, we used a group of conscientious objectors
for repeated exposure to an altitude of 18,000 feet without the
administration of supplemental oxygen. These tests involved the
following of a strict diet, they involved the performance of work
tests and psycho-motor tests, which required several hours every
day to perform. Another group of conscientious objectors that I
used were used for vitamin studies in relation to fatigue.

These conscientious objectors had to do a great deal of care-
fully measured work during the day as well as to perform psycho-
motor tests so medical students or dental students could not be
used. We had to have subjects who could spend their full time
on the experiments.*

***** * *

* To the question of conscientious objection in the United States, see Section VIII E —
Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects, cross-examination of Dr. Ivy (vol. I,
p. 944 ff.).

113

Q. Witness, from the answers that you have given so far, I
am still not clear in my mind precisely why you hit upon con-
scientious objectors in particular as the experimental subjects.
You said there were two groups of them: some were in prison
and some had to perform public service. From the latter group
you took your experimental subjects, but please give me a clear
answer to the question: Why did you specifically use such con-
scientious objectors for your altitude experiments?

A. They could devote full time to the experimental require-
ments. They did not have to do any other work as was the case
of medical students or dental students, the only other type of
subjects that I had available to me.

Q. Doctor, these persons were obliged to perform public serv-
ice. If these conscientious objectors had not been there or if they
had been used for public service, then you would not have had any
experimental subjects. There must be a specific reason why you
specifically used conscientious objectors and I ask you, please, to
tell me that reason.

A. Well, we could not have done the experiments unless the
conscientious objectors had been available. That is the answer
to your question.

Q. Could you not have used prisoners, even conscientious ob-
jectors who refused to do public service and were therefore in
prison without doing any work? Could you not have used them?

A. Well, that would have meant that I and my assistants would
have to go to the prison which was quite a distance away. The
conscientious objectors could come to us at the university where
they could live in the university dormitory or in the university
hospital.

Q. Doctor, if your experiments were really important — perhaps
important in view of the state of war — then it is difficult to under-
stand why the experiments could not have been carried out in
a prison, let us say. Other experiments have been carried out in
prisons to a large extent, and on another occasion. Doctor, you
told us that you simply had to get in touch with the prisoners;
you simply wrote them a letter or you put up a notice on the
bulletin board and then, to a certain extent, you had prisoners
available. Can you give me no other information as to why you
used specifically and only conscientious objectors?

A. No. If it had been convenient and necessary for me to use
prisoners, I believe that we could have had prisoner volunteers
for this work.

Q. Witness, were you ever in a penitentiary as a visitor?

A. Yes.

114

Q. Did you see there how the criminals condemned to death
were housed?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they completely at liberty there or are the criminals
condemned to death locked up in their cells?

A. They were locked up in their cells.

Q. Now, can you please tell us how a criminal condemned to
death is to see the notice that you would put on the bulletin
board? You told us today that it was very simple — you simply
put a notice on the bulletin board — and for hours now I have
been trying to figure out how a criminal condemned to death,
who is locked up in his cell, is going to see that notice on the
bulletin board.

A. While these prisoners are taken out for their meals, they
can pass by a bulletin board, or a piece of paper with the state-
ment on it which I read can be placed in their cells for reading
or, as a large group in the dining room, the statement can be
read to them.

Q. Are criminals condemned to death together at meals in
America? So far as I know, there too the criminal condemned
to death is given his food through an opening in the cell door;
he cannot eat in a common mess hall.

A. Yes. But you must recall that I did not specify that the
criminals which were used for malaria experiments were pris-
oners condemned to death; neither did I specify that if I were
to go to a penitentiary to see if I could get volunteers for a
nutrition experiment that I should select prisoners condemned
to death.

Q. If you are speaking here of condemned criminals as experi-
mental subjects, are you speaking of criminals condemned to death
or just of criminals who have just received some sentence or
other ?

A. I have not used prisoners or criminals condemned to death.
You have been using that statement. I have used prisoners.

Q. You spoke only of prisoners then?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are those prisoners in pre-trial imprisonment who have not
yet been put on trial or are those prisoners who have already
received some sentence?

A. Prisoners who have already received some sentence.

Q. In other words, prisoners who have been condemned or
sentenced ?

A. But not necessarily to death.

Q. Yes, other sentences, aside from the death sentence, in-
cluded. Did you as a scientist interest yourself in the question

115

of why a person was sentenced, for what crimes he was sen-
tenced ?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you at least concern yourself with the question whether
the man was condemned, was sentenced by a regular court or a
court martial, or an extraordinary court ?

A. None of these prisoners would have been sentenced by a
court martial; they would have been sentenced by an ordinary
civilian court.

Q. How do you know? Did you see the personal files of these
prisoners or did you see the opinions and sentences on the basis
of which the prisoner had been incarcerated ?

A. Only on the basis of the type of prisoner that would be
incarcerated in a certain penitentiary.

Q. How do you, as a doctor, know exactly what sort of pris-
oner is incarcerated in this penitentiary and what sort of pris-
oner is incarcerated in another prison? How do you know that?

A. That’s a matter of common knowledge to one who reads
the newspapers, the press, and who is generally informed on
such matters. In a Federal penitentiary then you might have
prisoners who have been incarcerated because of court martial.

Q. Are inmates of Federal penitentiaries used for experiments
too, as far as you know?

A. Yes. They may be.

Q. In other words, political prisoners too, that is, prisoners who
were condemned by a court martial or by another court?

A. We have no political prisoners in the United States.

Q. Are not prisoners condemned for high treason or treason
and the like? Those are political crimes.

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. For conspiring with the enemy during the war; such cases
have not only arisen but they have also been punished, and you
must know that from reading your newspaper, Professor; those
are political prisoners. Do you not have those in America?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Doctor, if I understood you correctly, you stated this morn-
ing that a medical experiment with fatal consequences is to be
designated either as an execution or as a murder; is that what
you said?

A. I did not say that.

Q. What did you say then?

A. It was more or less as I quoted it, as I remember, I said
that under the circumstances which surrounded the first death
in high altitude experiments at Dachau, which Dr. Romberg is
alleged to have witnessed, Dr. Rascher killed the subject; that

116

the death could be viewed only as an execution or as a murder;
and if the subject were a volunteer, then his death could not be
viewed as an execution.

Q. Witness, in your opinion, is there a difference whether the
experiments are to be traced back to the initiative of the experi-
menter himself, or whether they are ordered by some authoritative
office of the state which also assumes the responsibility for
them?

A. Yes. There is a difference, but that difference does not per-
tain, in my opinion, to the moral responsibilities of the investi-
gator toward his experimental subject.

Q. I cannot understand that, Doctor. I can imagine that the
state gives an experimenter the order, particularly during war-
time, to carry out certain experiments, and that in peacetime,
on his own initiative, the researcher would not carry out such
experiments unless he was ordered to by the state. You must
recognize this difference yourself.

A. That does not carry over to the moral responsibility of the
individual to his experimental subject. I do not believe that the
state can assume the responsibility of ordering a scientist to kill
people in order to obtain knowledge.

Q. Witness, that is not the question. I am not interested in
whether the state can order some one to murder; I am interested
in the question whether, in your opinion, the state can order,
let us say dangerous experiments, experiments in which perhaps
fatalities may occur. In America, too, deaths occurred several
times in experiments; what is your view on this?

A. The state, as far as I know, in the United States of Amer-
ica has never ordered scientists to perform any experiment where
death is likely to occur.

Q. Doctor, I did not say where death was probable, I said
where death is possible, and I ask you to answer the question I
put to you. If deaths are probable, then you are correct, then
it is murder. If deaths are possible, then I want to know what
you say to that. And, let me remind you, Doctor, that even in
the American Air Force deaths did occur; in other words, death
was possible.

A. Yes, I agree that it is possible for deaths to occur acci-
dentally in experiments which are hazardous. As I said in my
testimony under such conditions when they do occur, their cause
is investigated very thoroughly as well as the circumstances
surrounding the death.

# ^ sf: ^ jfc 3f:

Q. Witness, you spoke yesterday of a number of experiments
carried out in the United States and in other countries outside of

117

Germany. For example, pellagra, swamp fever, beri-beri, plague,
etc. Now, I should like to have a very clear answer from you
to the following question. In these experiments which you heard
of partly from persons involved in them and partly from inter-
national literature, did deaths occur during the experiments and
as a result of the experiments or not? Professor, I ask you this
question because you said yesterday that you examined all in-
ternational literature concerning this question and, therefore,
have a certain specialized knowledge on this question.

A. I also said that when one reviews the literature, he cannot
be sure that he has done a complete or perfect job.

So far as the reports I have read and presented yesterday are
concerned, there were no deaths in trench fever. There were no
deaths mentioned, to my knowledge, in the article on pellagra.
There were no deaths mentioned, to my knowledge, in the article
on beri-beri, and there were no deaths in the article, according
to my knowledge, in Colonel Strong’s article on plague. I would
not testify that I have read all the articles in the medical litera-
ture involving the use of human beings as subjects in medical
experiments.

Q. And, in the literature which you have read, Witness, there
was not a single case where deaths occurred? Did I understand
you correctly?

A. Yes. In the yellow fever experiments I indicated that Dr.
Carroll and Dr. Lazare died.

Q. That is the only case you know of?

A. That’s all that I know of.

* * ❖ * # ❖

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE*

CROSS-EX AMIN A TION

* * * * ❖ * *

Mr. McHaney : Now, would the extreme necessity for the large
scale production of typhus vaccines and the resultant experiments
on human beings in concentration camps have arisen had not Ger-
many been engaged in a war?

Defendant Rose: That question cannot simply be answered
with “yes” or “no”. It is, on the whole, not very probable that
without the war, typhus would have broken out in the German
camps, but it is not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility

* Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
April 47, pp. 6081-6484.

118

because in times of peace too typhus has broken out in individual
cases from time to time. The primary danger in the camps is the
louse danger, and infection by lice also occurs in times of peace.
If typhus breaks out in a camp that is infected with lice, a typhus
epidemic can arise in peacetime too, of course.

Q. But Germany had never experienced any difficulty with
typhus before the war. Isn’t that right?

A. Not for many decades, no.

Q. You stated that nine hundred persons were used in Dr.
Strong’s plague experiments?

A. Yes, I know that number from the literature on the sub-
ject.

Q. What is the usual mortality in plague?

A. That depends on whether it is bubonic plague or lung pest.
In one, namely, bubonic plague, the mortality can be as high as
sixty or seventy percent. It also can be lower. In lung pest, the
mortality is just about one hundred.

Q. How many people died in Dr. Strong’s plague experiments?

A. According to what his reports say, none of them died, but
this result could not have been anticipated because this was the
first time that anyone had attempted to inoculate living plague
virus into human beings, and Strong said in his first publication
in 1905 that he himself was surprised that no unpleasant incidents
occurred and that there was only severe fever reaction. That
despite this unexpectedly favorable outcome of Strong’s experi-
ments the specialists had considerable misgivings about this pro-
cedure can be seen first of all from publications where that is
explicitly stated; for example, two Englishmen say that, con-
trary to expectations, these experiments went off well but never-
theless this process cannot be used for general vaccination be-
cause there is always the danger that, through some unexpected
event, this strain again becomes virulent. Moreover, from other
works that Strong later published it can be seen that guinea pigs
and monkeys that he vaccinated with this vaccine died not of the
plague, but of the toxic affects of the vaccine. All these difficulties
are the reason why this enormously important discovery which
Roller and Otto made in 1903, and Strong in 1905, has only been
generally applied, for all practical purposes, since 1926. That is
an indication of the care and fear with which this whole matter
was first approached, and Strong could not know ahead of time
that his experiments would turn out well. I described here the
enormous concern that Strong felt during all these months re-
garding the fact that that might happen which every specialist
feared, viz., that the virus would become virulent again. That
is an enormous responsibility.

119

Q. Be that as it may, nobody died. That is a fact, isn’t it ?

A. If anyone did die, the publications say nothing about it.
There were deaths only among the monkeys and guinea pigs that
are mentioned in the publication. If human beings died, there
is no mention in the publication. It is generally known that if
there are serious accidents in such experiments as this, they are
only most reluctantly made public.

Q. Now, Professor, I have no wish to limit you but, as I under-
stand it, you have explained these things in considerable detail
during the four days in which you have already testified. If you
can give a short answer to my question that is all I want. If I
want any further explanation I’ll ask you for it.

Now, what is the normal death rate in beri-beri?

A. That depends on the medical care given. If the care is good,
the mortality is zero, and if they have no medical care at all,
then a lot of them die.

Q. Sixty to eighty percent would probably die if they were not
treated. Is that right?

A. Beri-beri lasts for many, many months before a person dies,
and usually one does not die of beri-beri in sixty days — that would
be a severe case.

Q. How many people did Strong use in his beri-beri experi-
ments ? Is twenty-nine all you know about ?

A. So far as I know from the literature, the number was twenty-
nine.

Q. Well, it says in the literature that he used only twenty-nine.
Is that right ?

A. So far as I know, yes.

Q. And one of those died?

A. According to what the literature says, one of them died.

Q. What is the mortality in typhus?

A. That varies enormously. It depends on the epidemic. In
some epidemics the mortality is five percent. In general, you count
on a mortality of twenty percent. In the Serb-Albanian epidemic
in 1915, there was a mortality of seventy percent, but that mor-
tality rate is so extraordinarily high that it is generally assumed
that probably, in reality, there were more cases of typhus than
were actually reported.

Q. Well, we could take roughly five to thirty percent as the
mortality. Is that right?

A. Yes. That is what the textbooks generally say.

Q. What was the mortality in the Buchenwald experiments,
Professor?

A. In the controlled cases in the experiments that I knew of,
the mortality rate was thirty percent.

120

Q. Among the controls, you figured thirty percent?

A. Yes. There were ten control persons in the first group of
experiments, and of them, three died.

Q. Three died? Well, but I assume that you have read through
the Ding diary and let us assume for the moment that it is cor-
rect. Didn’t you say that they also used control persons in the
four or five other series of experiments?

A. In the controlled cases where they were testing the vac-
cine, the general mortality rate was thirty percent. But then
there were these therapeutic experiments in which, according to
the diary, blood infections were undertaken and, in this case,
the diary does mention an unusually high mortality rate.

Q. Well, Professor, for your information, we have figured out
five control series in the Ding diary, and I mean by controls those
that were not treated with anything. The mortality ranges be-
tween fifty-four to one hundred percent and averaged eighty-one
percent. Do you accept those figures as correct? I mean, do you
think that’s right?

Q. No. That does not correspond with the impression I got
from the numbers in the diary, but I did not calculate it so pre-
cisely as all that. I looked at the individual experiments and it
is true that, for instance, in these therapeutic experiments, Ding’s
work mentions a mortality of something like fifty to fifty-five
percent, and then there is one series that deals with blood infec-
tion where of twenty people, I believe nineteen died.

Q. Let me put it to you, Professor, is it not a fact that they
were not dealing with epidemic typhus in Buchenwald, but with a
super-typhus, developed from man to man passage, which was
much more virulent and much more deadly than any typhus you
could expect in an epidemic?

A. That I cannot judge because I have no knowledge of the
work done in Buchenwald and can only refer to what Ding’s diary
says, which I regard as unreliable.

Q. Well, if you regard it as reliable, Doctor, and if you figure
out the deaths among the untreated control persons and find
a mortality which averaged eighty-one percent, will you not, as
a scientist and an expert on tropical diseases, concede that they
had developed a highly virulent, something we might call a super-
typhus, in Buchenwald? Isn’t that right, Professor?

A. As a scientist, I am accustomed to state my opinion on the
basis of reliable documentation and not on the basis of such falsi-
fications which are produced for a special purpose.

Q. I can appreciate that you do not regard the document as

reliable, Professor, but we will investigate that a little later.

**$*$$$

121

IX. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON COUNT
ONE OF THE INDICTMENT*

Presiding Judge Beals: The Secretary General will note for
the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.

The Tribunal will now announce its ruling on the motion of
certain defendants against Count I in the indictment concerning
the charge of conspiracy.

MILITARY TRIBUNAL 1

Count I of the indictment in this case charges that the de-
fendants, acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, will-
fully, and knowingly did conspire and agree together to commit
war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control
Council Law No. 10, Article 2. It is charged that the alleged crime
was committed between September 1939 and April 1945.

It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10
has defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against
humanity as a separate substantive crime; therefore, this Tri-
bunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of
conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense.

Count I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge
of conspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the formula-
tion and execution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes
against humanity which actually involved the commission of
such crimes. We, therefore, cannot properly strike the whole of
Count I from the indictment, but insofar as Count I charges the
commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate sub-
stantive offense, distinct from any war crime or crime against
humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that charge.

This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or
effect of Article 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10,
or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to offer
in evidence any facts or circumstances, occurring either before
or after September 1939, if such facts or circumstances tend to
prove or to disprove the commission by any defendant of war
crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council
Law No. 10.

* Tr. pp. 10717-10718, 14 July 47.

122

X. FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT 1

BY DR. SERVATIUS

Mr. President, your Honors:

I cannot comment on all the questions which the prosecution
brought up this morning. I must limit myself to a few things
and can refer to my closing brief where I have gone into con-
siderable detail on all these questions.

This morning I heard the detailed legal arguments advanced
by the prosecutor. I have commented particularly on these legal
questions in my closing brief, and I will now merely make a few
brief comments.

The prosecution assumes that Law No. 10 is an independent law.
This is not correct, for it designates itself explicitly as a law for
the execution of the London Charter and declares that Charter
to be an integral part of the law.

Now, the sole purpose of the London Charter is to punish
disturbances of international legal relations, and not what has
happened or is happening somewhere within an individual state.
Any other interpretation would put an end to the conception
of sovereignty, and it would give right of intervention into the
affairs of other states.

In the trial before Tribunal III, Case No. 3, against Flick et al., 2
General Taylor referred to an alleged right of intervention, quot-
ing a considerable amount of literature with regard to this right
of intervention into the internal affairs of another country.

I have ventured to refer to the position taken concerning this
by one of the four signatory powers of the London Charter, a
signatory power which was itself the victim of intervention in the
name of civilization, the Soviet Union. I have attached the said
literature to part I of my closing brief.

The Soviet Union drew a clear inference from the intervention
to which it had been exposed by the Entente at the end of the
First World War and obtained an alteration in the text of the
London Charter, under which intervention would have been pos-
sible, by insisting that the text, which was ambiguous in conse-
quence of the punctuation, be altered by the insertion of a comma.
This comma was so important that the representatives of the
four signatory powers met on purpose to discuss it.

It results therefrom that the internal affairs of a country
cannot be affected by the London Charter and, consequently,

1 Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 47, pp. 10797-10817.

2 United States vs. Friedrich Flick et al. See voL VI.

841684—49—9

123

by Law No. 10. Punishment by this Tribunal of acts committed
by Germans against Germans is therefore inadmissible.

The prosecution further discussed at length this morning an-
other question, that is the question of conspiracy. I have also
commented on that in my closing brief. I will merely make a
brief reply here to the prosecution.

The point of view of the defense, that a charge of conspiracy
as an independent offense is inadmissible, was confirmed by the
Tribunal’s decision of today. In that way the leak in the dike, so
to speak, was stopped, and one cannot let the ocean pour into the
land from the other side by declaring the conception of con-
spiracy admissible under common law.

The conception of conspiracy is really only a technical expedient
of the jurists. Its purpose is to effect, beyond the number of
accomplices in the true sense of the word, other persons who are
considered deserving of punishment, but who cannot be proved
guilty of complicity.

This may be done where the law against conspiracy is common
law. If, however, this law is introduced in Germany after the
event and applied to facts which have occurred in the past, this
would mean that by a detour of the law of procedure new con-
ceptions of offense would be introduced into material law. This
would amount to an ex post facto law and is, therefore, illegal
according to legal principles generally recognized.

The purpose of enlarging the circle of participants cannot be
attained under Law No. 10 by breaking up the conception of con-
spiracy into its component parts and introducing forms of com-
plicity hitherto unknown in Germany.

Now, I shall read my statement proper:

In the closing statement against the defendant Karl Brandt
the prosecution discussed very little the counter evidence brought
forward by the defense in the course of the proceedings. They
relied to a large extent on evidence already advanced in the
indictment.

The affidavits of the defendants themselves play a special part
in support of the prosecution. For the defendant Karl Brandt they
are important with respect to his position and consequent knowl-
edge of the event referred to in the indictment.

If these affidavits contain imputations they can only be used,
according to the Tribunal’s statement, against the affiants them-
selves. As far as they involve the defendant Karl Brandt, how-
ever, they have been clarified in respect to the decisive issues.
But in spite of this correction the first statements may prejudice
credibility unless good reasons justify such correction.

Here the result of interrogations made in the initial proceedings

124

is in contradiction to the evidence given before the Tribunal. On
the basis of practical experience, German law considers as valid
evidence only the result of an interrogation made by a judge.
The reason is the lack of impartiality which may be found, quite
naturally, in the case of an interrogating official who is to con-
duct the prosecution. The capacity of the interrogator to elicit
the truth impartially depends on his character, his training, and
his professional experience.

The qualification of the interrogators has been attacked here by
the defense, but the prosecution has made no effort to substan-
tiate it.

In order to form a judgment it is also important to know the
general lines on which the prosecution carries out its interroga-
tions. Under German law the prosecutor also has to ascertain
and put forward exculpating material when investigating a case
personally or through assistants. As to American procedure, Jus-
tice Jackson clearly rejected this principle during the trial before
the International Military Tribunal and said he could never serve
two masters.

This critical view of the affidavits is confirmed by their con-
tents, which frequently show the struggle between the inter-
rogator and the interrogated person. He is no classical witness
who says, “I believe,” “I presume,” “as far as I remember,” and
so on, for he shows thereby that he can give no positive infor-
mation. And such testimony becomes completely worthless if
conclusions are drawn in the form of, “It would have been im-
possible for him,” “he might have known,” “perhaps he was the
highest authority,” and so forth.

Not only individual words thus demonstrated that the testimony
is composed of conclusions, but whole parts of the reports show
the same character.

In view of all this, the defendants’ contentions are to be be-
lieved, that they raised objections but succumbed to the weight
of the prepared record presented to them and signed, trusting
that they would have an opportunity later to clarify deficiencies
and to state their true opinion.

This criticism of the defendants’ affidavits is also called for in
the case of the affidavits given by the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion. Facts are recorded therein which the witnesses did not
know themselves, but which they had only heard about, and
which they presumed after having been made to believe them
by persuasion. The individual cases in which objections are to be
raised on these lines have been dealt with in the closing brief.

The charges advanced against the defendant Karl Brandt in-
clude medical experiments on human beings and euthanasia. In

125

both cases the defendant is charged with having committed
crimes against humanity.

The press comments on the proceedings, anticipating the sen-
tence and publishing articles about base characters and depravity.
Pamphlets with striking titles appear.

On the other hand the Tribunal will make itself acquainted with
the literature collected by the defense as evidence. If one reads
this literature one loses one’s self-confidence and cannot conclude
without admitting that these are problems which persons not
considered criminals tried to solve before the defendants. These
are problems of the community. The individual may make sug-
gestions for their solution, but the decision is the task of the
community and therefore of the state. The question is how great
a sacrifice may the state demand in the interest of the commu-
nity? This decision is for the state alone.

How the state decides depends on its free discretion, and finds
its limit only in the rebellion of its citizens. In obeying the orders
of his state, the defendant Karl Brandt did no wrong. If sentence
is passed against him, it would be a political sentence against the
state and the ideology it represents.

One can condemn the defendant Karl Brandt only by imposing
on him the duty of rebellion and the duty of having a different
ideology to his environment.

It is contended that the state finds its limits in the eternal
basic elements of law, which are said to be so clear that anyone
could discern their violation as a crime, and that loyalty to the
state beyond these limits is therefore a crime. One forgets that
eternal law, the law of nature, is but a guiding principle for the
state and the legislator and not a counter-code of law which the
subject might use as a support against the state. It is emphasized
that no other state had made such decisions up to now. This is
true only to a certain extent. It is no proof, however, that such
decisions were not necessary and admissible now. There is no
prohibition against daring to progress.

The progress of medical science opened up the problem of ex-
periments on human beings already in the past century, and
eventually made it ripe for decision. It is not the first time that
a state has adopted a certain attitude with regard to euthanasia
with a change of ideology.

Only the statesmen decide what is to be done in the interests
of the community, and they have never hesitated to issue such
a decision whenever they deemed it necessary in the interest of
their people. Thereupon their rules and orders were carried
through under the authority of the state, which is the basis of
society.

126

Inquisition, witch trials, and revolutionary tribunals have ex-
isted in the name of the state and eternal justice, and the execu-
tive participants did not consider themselves criminals but serv-
ants of their community. They would have been killed if they
had stood up against what was believed to be newly discovered
eternal justice. What is the subject to do if the orders of the
state exceed the customary limits which the individual himself
took for inviolable according to tradition.

What did the airman think who dropped the first atomic bomb
on Hiroshima? Did he consider himself a criminal? What did the
statesmen think who ordered this atomic bomb to be used. We
know from the history of this event that the motive was patriot-
ism, based on the harsh necessity of sacrificing hundreds of thou-
sands to save their own soldiers’ lives. This motive was stronger
than the prohibition of the Hague Convention, under which bel-
ligerents have no unlimited right in the choice of methods for
inflicting damage on the enemy.

“My cause is just and my quarrel honorable,” says the king.
And Shakespeare’s soldier answers him: “That’s more than we
know.” Another soldier adds: “Ay, or more than we should seek
after; for we know enough if we know we are the king’s subjects;
if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime
out of us.”

It is the hard necessity of the state on which the defense for
Karl Brandt is based against the charge of having performed
criminal experiments on human beings.

Here also — in addition to the care for the population — the lives
of soldiers were at stake, soldiers who had to be protected from
death and epidemics. In Professor Bickenbach’s experiment, the
issue was the lives of women and children who without 45 million
gas masks would have been as unprotected against the expected
gas attack as the Japanese were against the atomic bomb. Bio-
logical warfare was imminent, even praised abroad as cheaper
and more effective than the atomic bomb.

Is it really against the law and all political morals if the state
in such a situation provides for the expected emergency and
orders the necessary medical experiments to be performed on its
own citizens? As applied to foreigners such procedure is limited
in principle. In my closing brief I have discussed the exceptions.

What is to be done is decided not by the physician but by the
political leader. Even the expert Dr. Ivy had to grant him the
fundamental authority.

The question is why, with the legal position so clear, a man
like Keitel refused to have such experiments carried out in the
Wehrmacht, and why some of the defendants themselves try to

127

disprove any connection with the experiments. The answer is that
a measure may be as unavoidable as war and yet be abhorred
in the same way.

Unlike Professor Ivy, these men certainly considered these ex-
periments an evil, and their desire was not to become involved in
them personally, if possible, and not to allow troops to participate
in them who should not be burdened with such questions and who
had no insight into the necessity of the measures to be taken. In
spite of everything, Germany was not yet so “communized” that
all private feelings in the individual had disappeared.

The prosecution opposes to this necessity the condition of abso-
lute voluntariness.

It was a surprise to hear from the expert Professor Ivy that
in the penitentiaries many hundreds of volunteers were pressing
for admission to experiments, and that more volunteered than
could be used. I do not want to dispose of this phenomenon with
irony and sarcasm. There may be people who realize that the
community has the right to ask them for a sacrifice. Their feeling
of justice may tell them that insistence on humanity has its
limits. If humanity means the appeal to the strong not to forget
the weak in the abundance of might and w'ealth, the weak should
also make their contribution when all are in need.

But what if in the emergency of war the convicts, and those
declared to be unworthy to serve in the armed forces, refuse to
accept such a sacrifice voluntarily, and only prove an asocial
burden to state and community and bring about the downfall of
the community? Is not compulsion by the state then admissible
as an additional expiation ?

The prosecution says “No”. According to this human rights
demand the downfall of human beings.

But there is a mixture of voluntariness and compulsory expia-
tion, “purchased voluntariness.” Here the experimental subject
does not make a sacrifice out of conviction for the good of the
community but for his own good. The subject gives his consent
because he is to receive money, cigarettes, a mitigation of punish-
ment, etc. There may be isolated cases of this nature where the
person is really a volunteer, but as a rule it is not so.

If one compares the actual risk with the advantage granted,
one cannot admit the consent of these “voluntary prisoners” as
legal, in spite of all the protective forms they have to sign, for
these can only have been obtained by taking advantage of inex-
perience, imprudence, or distress.

Looking through medical literature, one cannot escape the grow-
ing conviction that the word “volunteer”, where it appears at
all, is used only as a word of protection and camouflage; it is

128

hardly ever missing since the struggle over this problem became
acute.

I will touch only briefly on what I have explained in detail in
my closing brief. No one will contend that human beings really
allowed themselves to be infected voluntarily with venereal dis-
ease ; this has nowhere been stated explicitly in literature. Cholera
and plague are also not minor inconveniences one is likely to
undergo voluntarily for a trifle in the interest of science. Above
all, it is not customary to hand over children for experimental
purposes, and I cannot believe that in the 13 experiments carried
out on a total of 223 children, as stated in Document Karl Brandt
117, Karl Brandt Exhibit 103, the mothers gave their consent.
Would not the mothers have deserved the praise of the scientist
for the sacrifice they trustfully made in the interest of science,
praise which is otherwise liberally granted to real volunteers in
reports on experiments?

Is it not likely to have been similar to the experiments carried
out by Professor McCance? {Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex.
29.) The German authorities who condemn the defendants in a
particularly violent form have no objection to raise here against
the order to hand over weakling children to a research commis-
sion for experimental purposes. The questionnaires which the
Tribunal approved for me in order to get further information
about this matter have not been answered as the higher author-
ities did not give permission for such statements to be made.
This silence says enough; it is proof of what is supposed to be
legal today in the line of “voluntariness”.

It is repeatedly shown that the experiments for which no con-
sent was given were permitted with the full knowledge of the
government authorities. It is further shown that these experi-
ments were published in professional literature without meeting
any objection, and that they were even accepted by the public
without concern as a normal phenomenon when reports about
them appeared in popular magazines.

This happens at a time when the same press is stigmatizing as
crimes against humanity the German experiments which were
necessary in the interests of the state. Voluntariness is a fiction ;
the emergency of the state hard reality.

In all countries experiments on human beings have been per-
formed by doctors, certainly not because they took pleasure in
killing or tormenting, but only at the instigation and under the
protection of their state, and in accordance with their own con-
viction of the necessity for these experiments in the struggle for
the existence of the people.

The German doctor who acted in conformity with the German

129

regulations can no more be punished than the American doctor
who complied with the requests of his state in the way which is
customary there.

Justice is indivisible.

To what extent is the defendant Karl Brandt implicated in
the medical experiments?

The prosecution says he is implicated in almost all the experi-
ments and refers to his position and his connections. They state
that he was the highest Reich authority in the medical spheres;
there, however, they are misled by an error in translation, for
Karl Brandt only had the powers, regulated in a general way, of
an “Oberste Reichsbehoerde” [Supreme Reich Authority], and
the practice of those powers was restricted to special cases.

This is apparent from the three known decrees and from the
explanation thereof given by witnesses. Moreover, Karl Brandt
was not given these functions until 1944 when these experiments
were practically finished, as is shown by the time schedule sub-
mitted to the Tribunal for comparison.

It has been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt himself, in
a broadcast, publicly called his position as Reich Commissioner
a “Differential”. In fact, Karl Brandt’s task was not to order but
to adjust; it was a task designed to fit his character.

We have also learned from the presentation of evidence that
the defendant Karl Brandt did not have the machinery at his
disposal for issuing orders which was necessary for a supreme
Reich authority; he lacked the staff and the means. No one who
is acquainted with a government administration will think it
possible that, under these circumstances, the defendant Karl
Brandt might have been able to enforce his point of view against
the resistance of the old agencies ; no one will even think it prob-
able that anything would have been done to facilitate such an
attempt by the “new master”.

Consequently, Karl Brandt’s position was not such as to justify
the conclusion drawn by the prosecution as to his general knowl-
edge. There was no official channel by which everything was
bound to come to his knowledge, for he was not the superior
of other authorities.

It is true that the defendant Karl Brandt was supposed to be
informed about fundamental matters, that he had the right to
intervene, and so on. But these were only possibilities, not in
conformity with conditions in practice. We have seen that Conti
opposed him and that Himmler prohibited direct contact with
Karl Brandt within his sphere.

Therefore Karl Brandt can be brought into connection only
with the events in which he participated directly.

130

Here it is first of all striking that the defendant Karl Brandt,
who is supposed to have been the highest authority, appears only
very rarely.

There are three so-called troop experiments: the testing of
drinking water, concentrated food, and an ointment for burns.

Further, three medical experiments are connected with the
defendant Karl Brandt. The hepatitis experiments, which he is
said to have suggested, were not carried out. While that research
was continued during the following years, Karl Brandt, who is
said to have sponsored it particularly, is mentioned by none of
the numerous 'witnesses and experts, and his name is not men-
tioned in any document. Is it not, therefore, a plausible explana-
tion that Grawitz confused the names?

The second case is the request to hand over 10 prisoners for
two days for an experiment not named. This cannot refer to a real
medical experiment, for such an experiment cannot be carried out
in such a short time with the necessary tests and observations.
The speedy return of the experimental subjects indicates that the
experiment was not dangerous.

Finally, the defendant Karl Brandt is connected with the
phosgene experiments by Bickenbach, which caused the death of
four Germans sentenced to death. But precisely here Bickenbach’s
affidavit shows that the defendant Karl Brandt was outside the
whole framework of the experiment in Himmler’s sphere, and that
he was merely approached to mediate. The order came from
Himmler. The experiments must have seemed innocuous to the
defendant Karl Brandt since Bickenbach wanted to carry them
out on himself.

On the other hand, there was the state emergency and the
enormous importance of the discovery that the taking of a few
urotropin tablets might give the ardently desired protection to all
against the expected gas attack and, as the result of the experi-
ment shows, actually did so.

Now the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of
Karl Brandt with the other experiments via the Reich Research
Council. It is true that one can establish such a connection theo-
retically on paper, but the links of the chain break when one
examines them closely. Only the head of the specialized depart-
ment decided on the so-called research assignments, and he only
investigated whether the aim was necessary for war, not how
the experiment was to be carried out. He could not inform others
of matters about which he did not know himself.

The defendant Karl Brandt is further charged with not having
protested in one case when he heard about deaths caused by ex-
periments on persons sentenced to death in the well-known lecture

131

on sulfanilamide. I must point out that even if this experiment
had been inadmissible, silence would not be a crime, for assent
after the act is without importance in criminal law, and one can
only be connected with plans and enterprises as long as they have
not been concluded.

Now the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief a new
charge holding the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for neg-
ligence. In this respect I should like to point out that no indict-
ment for negligence has been brought in, and that the concept
of crime against humanity committed by negligence cannot exist.

Therefore, it will be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged
negligence depends on the existence of a duty of supervision and
the right to give orders through other agencies. In every state
the spheres of competence are separated, and it is not possible
for everyone to interfere in everything on the basis that everyone
is responsible for everything.

The prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to
have used his influence and availed himself of his intimate rela-
tions with Hitler to stop the experiments. Even presuming that
he was aware of the facts as crimes, his guilt would not be of a
legal, but only of a political or moral nature. Until now nobody
has been held criminally responsible for the conduct of a superior
or a friend; the question of criminal law, however, is the only
one the Tribunal has to consider. As a matter of fact this close
relationship did not exist. The defendant Karl Brandt was the
surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. Morell, the
latter’s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the confidence
placed in Karl Brandt so that he was given commissions which
removed him further and further from the sphere of his medical
activity.

The alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the
dictation of a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his
having been granted even a hearing on the charges advanced
against him.

If one sums up everything relating to the medical experiments
and follows to a large extent the charges of the prosecution, it
is an established fact that it is not shown that the defendant
Karl Brandt participated in any way in experiments on prisoners
of war and foreigners, or that he was cognizant of them. There-
fore, no war crime or crime against humanity has been com-
mitted, and consequently punishment under Law No. 10 is ex-
cluded. I refer in this connection to the legal arguments in my
dosing brief.

The second problem is euthanasia.

The authorization of 1 September 1939 was issued before the

132

period of the medical experiments, at a time when the defendant
Karl Brandt was still closely attached to the Fuehrer’s head-
quarters and to Hitler as an accompanying physician.

In my closing brief I have explained in detail that the defend-
ant Karl Brandt did not participate in the Action 14 f 13, with
the “special treatment” of prisoners in concentration camps, oc-
currences which were given the name of euthanasia only here in
the trial.

Neither did the defendant Karl Brandt take any part in the
extermination of Jews in Auschwitz, which again has nothing in
common with the idea of euthanasia.

I have further shown that the so-called “wild euthanasia”,
which was carried out simultaneously with and immediately after
legal euthanasia, was not instigated by Karl Brandt. The stopping
of euthanasia in August 1941 has been proved, and therefore that
was the end of the defendant Karl Brandt’s duties; for what
would have been the meaning of this cessation if, after it, in-
creased activity was to set in? The contacts of Karl Brandt after
the cessation have been clarified as being the consequence of his
activities connected with evacuation for air protection. Where
the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is mentioned otherwise,
it obviously serves only as means of information for uninformed
people who never saw or heard anything of him themselves.

I shall deal here with euthanasia only to the extent that it is
officially dealt with under the ordinance of 1 September 1939.
Concerning the “Reich committee”, I refer to my closing brief.

The presentation of evidence has established that the defend-
ant Karl Brandt actually had no “administrative and medical
office” from which the whole organization might have been ad-
ministered. On the contrary, it is a fact that Bouhler declared
himself solely responsible for the procedure; this is testified to
by unequivocal documents.

Nor has any regulation or instruction become known which was
issued by Karl Brandt. Not a single document was signed by him.
He made no speeches and conducted no discussions.

But what did he do and what was his duty?

His duty was not to carry out euthanasia; he was only to be
informed in special cases in order to be able to report to Hitler.
This was in conformity with the existing conditions — his presence
at and simultaneous attachment to the Fuehrer’s headquarters,
and to Hitler.

Only once was Karl Brandt seen active, and that is in the
negotiations with Pastor von Bodelschwingh, which led to the
result, amazing for us, that the defendant Karl Brandt won
Bodelschwingh’s sympathy, and after the collapse the latter said

133

in a radio interview that Brandt was an idealist but not a criminal.

But the defendant Karl Brandt took note of interrogation forms,
he inspected a registrar’s office, and he co-signed the authority
for physicians to execute euthanasia.

What could the defendant Karl Brandt learn from the forms?

The prosecution thinks that Jews and foreigners were to be
affected in the first instance. The affidavit by the director of the
Jewish lunatic asylum, in which all the insane Jews of Germany
were concentrated, proves that this was not the case.

The prosecution says that all persons unfit for work were to
be killed as “useless eaters”. But it is a fact that even work-
houses were requested to give information only about cases of
really grave insanity.

What did the defendant Karl Brandt know about the pro-
cedure ?

He knew that the authorization which was issued was not an
order given to the doctor, but only conferred on him the right to
act on his own responsibility after the most careful consideration
of the patient’s condition. This was a clause inserted in the
ordinance of 1 September 1939 on Karl Brandt’s initiative.

The defendant Karl Brandt knew that the specialists, whom he
did not know, were chosen by the Ministry of the Interior, and
that the experts were eminent men in their special spheres.

The defendant Karl Brandt also knew that the authorities
concerned saw no reason to object to the execution of the measure,
and that even the chief jurists of the Reich declared the legal
foundations to be irreproachable, after having been informed of
the facts.

Within this framework the defendant Karl Brandt approved of
official euthanasia and supported it.

But the prosecution even calls euthanasia a thousand-fold mur-
der. In their opinion there was no formal law, and it is alleged
that the expert Dr. Lammers confirmed this.

Yes, but he also stated that even an informal ordinance was
valid. Even an order issued by the Fuehrer had the force of law,
as can be clearly seen from the indisputable effects of such orders,
in particular in relation to foreigners.

But for the defendant Karl Brandt it is of no importance
whether the ordinance of 1 September 1939 was actually valid or
not; the only important thing is that he had reason to believe it
was valid and that he could rely on this opinion.

German courts have already dealt with cases of the practice
of euthanasia; but these cases occurred after the official pro-
cedure had been stopped, as at Hadamar, or after persons had
been killed who could never have come under the powers conferred

134

by the ordinance, or other crimes were committed.

It should be observed that these sentences always confirm the
base motives of the offenders. On the other hand, these courts
were concerned with the question of public law only to the extent
that they confirm that no formal law was available. In one case
the court restricted itself to information given by a member
of the prosecution staff in the trial before the International Mili-
tary Tribunal.

The real objections to euthanasia are not based on a formal
point of view, but rather on the same reasons which are ad-
vanced against the admissibility of the medical experiments.

Even an insane person of the lowest grade may not be killed
it is said. No human being may presume to kill another human
being.

But the right to kill in war is accepted in international law, and
public law allows the suppression of a revolt by violence.

What prevents the state from ordering killing in the sphere
of euthanasia too?

The answer is that there is no motive which might justify an
action of this kind.

The economic motive of eliminating “useless eaters” is certainly
not sufficient for such measures. Such a motive was never upheld
by the defendant Karl Brandt; it was apparently mentioned by
others as an accompanying contingency and later taken up by
counter propaganda.

The defendant Karl Brandt considered the motive of pity for
the patient to be the decisive one. This motive is tacitly accepted
for euthanasia on the deathbed, and doctors in all countries in-
creasingly acknowledge it.

In former times the courts were repeatedly concerned with
killings committed out of pity, and in sensational trials, juries
found offenders not guilty who freed their nearest relatives from
the torment of life.

Who would not have the desire to die while in good health
rather than to be forced by all the resources of medical science
to continue life degraded to an animal’s existence! Only mis-
guided civilization keeps such beings alive ; in the normal struggle
for existence Nature is more charitable.

But the legislator has hitherto refrained from giving authority
to kill in such cases. But he can solve the problem if he wants to.
The reasons for his restraint are exactly those which led in this
case to the disguising of those measures and to the secrecy ob-
served. There is the fear of base intrigues concerning inheritance,
the mental burden of the relatives, and so on. The individual
does not want to bear this burden, nor is he able to do so. It can

135

be taken over only by the state, which is independent of the de-
sires of those concerned.

That such is the will of the great majority of those who really
come into touch with these problems was shown by the result of
the inquiry conducted by Professor Meltzer, which has been of-
fered in evidence. It was carried out by him many years ago in
order to obtain an argument against euthanasia and its principal
supporters, Binding and Hoche. He obtained the reverse of what
he had himself expected as an expert.

But I see a third motive which unconsciously plays an important
part; it is the idea of sacrifice.

A lunatic may cause the mental and economic decay of a family
and also ruin it morally.

If healthy human beings make great sacrifices for the com-
munity and lay down their lives by order of the state, the insane
person, if he could arouse himself mentally and make a decision,
would choose a similar sacrifice for himself.

Why should not the state be allowed to enact this sacrifice in
his case and impose on him what he would want to do himself?

Is the state to be forbidden to carry out such euthanasia until
the whole world is a hospital, while the creatures of nature keep
unblemished through what is believed to be the brutality of
Nature ?

The decision as to whether such an order given by the state
is admissible or not depends on the conception of the social life
of mankind and is, therefore, a political decision.

Neither the defendant Karl Brandt nor anyone else who par-
ticipated in legalized euthanasia would ever have killed a human
being on his own authority, and in the German sentences passed
the blameless former life of the persons stigmatized as mass-
murderers is always emphasized.

This is a warning to be cautious. Did they really commit bru-
talities, or were they sentenced only because they were not in a
position to swim against the tide of times and to oppose it with
their own judgment?

A Christian believing in dogma will turn away in pity from this
way of thinking. But if the order to use euthanasia to the desired
limited extent was really in such contradiction to the command-
ment of God that everyone could realize it, then it is incom-
prehensible why Hitler, who never withdrew from the church,
was not excommunicated.

This must remove the burden of guilt which one now wants
to pile up. Then humanity would have clearly realized at the
time that in this devilish struggle man cannot prevail for God
stands for Justice.

136

If there are offenders there are many co-offenders, and one
understands Pastor Niemoeller saying: “We are all guilty/’

This is a moral or a political guilt, but cannot be shifted to a
single person as criminal guilt.

I have thus shown the fundamental lines along which the ac-
tions of the defendant Karl Brandt have to be judged.

The primary consideration for the judgment of this Tribunal
is that no prisoners of war or foreigners were submitted to eu-
thanasia with the knowledge or the desire of the defendant Karl
Brandt.

Thus the defendant Karl Brandt cannot be punished under
Law No. 10 on this count either. What happened between Ger-
mans is not subject to the decision of this Tribunal.

Finally, the defendant Karl Brandt is also charged with hav-
ing been a member of the SS, an organization which has been
declared criminal. Evidence to show that the defendant Karl
Brandt knew of a criminal aim of this organization and approved
of it must be brought by the prosecution. A reference to the gen-
eral assertions in these proceedings is not sufficient proof, for
precisely here the prosecution cannot prevail with their assertions
in regard to Karl Brandt.

As to the details, I refer to the statements made in my closing
brief.

The fact that the defendant Karl Brandt was the only member
of the SS who at the same time retained his position as a medical
officer in the army shows that his honorary rank in the SS was
really only a formality, and that he was no true member of this
organization.

When the defendant Karl Brandt testified here that he wore
the uniform of the SS with pride, this only shows that he, like
the majority of the SS men, knew nothing about the criminal
aims. In judging the organization of the SS, the International
Military Tribunal was aware only of a small part of the whole,
looking, so to speak, through a keyhole into a dark comer.

Nor could the defendant Karl Brandt have any personal knowl-
edge of Himmler’s secrets, for Himmler rejected him personally,
as is shown by a number of affidavits. Since the defendant Karl
Brandt could not obtain information even in his own sphere
of medicine, how is he to have obtained knowledge of other
matters ?

I do not want to repeat the affidavits which give information
about the basic attitude of the defendant Karl Brandt and show
that he adopted an attitude which was incompatible with the
mentality supposed to be typical of the SS. In this connection
I merely refer to the statements made by Pastor Bodelschwingh,

137

Dr. Gerstenmaier, Meyer-Bockhoff, Philipp Prince of Hesse, and
others.

If I, as the defense counsel, consider Karl Brandt’s conduct as
a whole and see the wounds he has received in the struggle of
life, I must acknowledge that he is a man and not a criminal.

For the Tribunal’s decision, however, the only conclusive fact
is that the defendant Karl Brandt did not disturb the circle of
international law, for he committed no war crimes and conse-
quently no crimes against humanity. I, therefore, ask that de-
fendant Karl Brandt be acquitted.

XI. FINAL STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS,

19 JULY 1947

A. Final Statement of Defendant Karl Brandt*

There is a word which seems so simple — order; and how
colossal are its implications. How immeasurable are the conflicts
which hide behind the word obey. Both affected me, obey and
order, and both imply responsibility. I am a doctor and on my
conscience lies the responsibility of being responsible for men
and for life. Quite dispassionately the prosecution has brought
the charge of crime and murder and they have raised the ques-
tion of my guilt. It would have no weight if friends and patients
were to shield me and speak well of me, saying I had helped and
I had healed. There would be many examples of my actions
during danger and my readiness to help. All that is now useless.
As far as I am concerned I shall not evade these charges. But the
attempt to vindicate myself as a man is my duty towards all
who believe in me personally, who trusted in me and who relied
upon me as a man as well as a doctor and a superior.

No matter how I was faced with the problem, I have never re-
garded human experiments as a matter of course, not even when
no danger was entailed. But I affirm the necessity for them on
grounds of reason. I know that opposition will arise. I know
things that disturb the conscience of a medical man, and I know
the inner distress that afflicts one when ethics of every form
are decided by an order or obedience.

It is immaterial for the experiment whether it is done with
or against the will of the person concerned. For the individual
the event seems senseless, just as senseless as my actions as a
doctor seem when isolated. The sense lies much deeper than that.

•Tr. pp. 11311-11814.

138

Can I, as an individual, detach myself from the community? Can
I remain outside and do without it? Could I, as a part of this
community, evade it by saying I want to live in this community,
but I don’t want to make any sacrifices for it, either of body or
soul? I want to keep a clear conscience. Let them see how they
can get along. And yet we, that community and I, are somehow
identical.

Thus I must suffer these contradictions and bear the conse-
quences, even if they remain incomprehensible. I must bear them
as my lot in life, which allocates to me its tasks. The meaning
is the motive — devotion to the community. If on its account I am
guilty, then on its account I will be answerable.

There was war. In war, efforts are all alike. Its sacrifices affect
us all. They were incumbent upon me. But are those sacrifices
my crime? Did I tread on the precepts of humanity and despise
them? Did I pass over human beings and their lives as if they
were nothing? Men will point at me and cry “euthanasia”, and
falsely, “the useless”, “the incapable”, “the worthless”. But what
actually happened? Did not Pastor Bodelschwingh, in the middle
of his work at Bethel last year, say that I was an idealist and
not a criminal? How could he say that?

Here I am, subject of the most frightful charges, as if I had not
only been a doctor, but also a man without heart or conscience.
Do you think that it was a pleasure to me to receive the order
to permit euthanasia? For 15 years I had toiled at the sickbed
and every patient was to me like a brother. I worried about every
sick child as if it had been my own. My personal lot was a heavy
one. Is that guilt?

Was it not my first thought to limit the scope of euthanasia?
Did I not, the moment I was included, try to find a limit and
demand a most searching report on the incurables? Were not the
appointed professors of the universities there? Who could there
be who was better qualified? But I do not want to speak of these
questions and of their execution. I am defending myself against
the charge of inhuman conduct and base intentions. In the face
of these charges I fight for my right to humane treatment! I
know how complicated this problem is. With the utmost fervor
I have tortured myself again and again, but no philosophy or
other wisdom helped me here. There was the decree and on it
there was my name. It is no good saying that I could have feigned
sickness. I do not live this life of mine in order to evade fate if
I meet it. And thus I assented to euthanasia. I fully realize the
problem; it is as old as mankind, but it is not a crime against
man nor against humanity. It is pity for the incurable, literally.
Here I cannot believe like a clergyman or think as a jurist. I am

841584 — 49—10

139

a doctor and I see the law of nature as being the law of reason.
In my heart there is love of mankind, and so it is in my con-
science. That is why I am a doctor!

When I talked at the time to Pastor Bodelschwingh, the only
serious admonisher I knew personally, it seemed at first as if our
thoughts were far apart; but the longer we talked and the more
we came into the open, the closer and the greater became our
mutual understanding. At that time we were not concerned with
words. It was a struggle and a search far beyond the human
sphere. When the old Pastor Bodelschwingh left me after many
hours and we shook hands, his last words were: “That was the
hardest struggle of my life.” For him as well as for me that
struggle remained; and the problem remained too.

If I were to say today that I wish this problem had never come
upon me with its convulsive drama, that would be nothing but
superficiality in order to make me feel more comfortable in my-
self. But I am living in these times and I see that they are full
of antitheses. Somewhere we all must make a stand. I am fully
conscious that when I said “Yes” to euthanasia I did so with the
deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was
right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life — just as much
as birth. It was never meant to be murder. I bear a burden, but
it is not the burden of crime. I bear this burden of mine, though
with a heavy heart, as my responsibility. I stand before it, and
before my conscience, as a man and as a doctor.

B. Final Statement of Defendant Handloser*

During my first interrogations here in Nuernberg, in August
1946, the interrogator declared to me:

First, you have been the Chief of the Army Medical Service.
Whether or not you knew of inadmissible experiments does not
matter here. As the Chief, you are responsible for everything.

Secondly, do not make the excuse that among other nations
the same or similar things have happened. We are not concerned
with that here. The Germans are under indictment, not the
others.

Thirdly, do not appeal to your witnesses. They, of course, will
testify in your favor. We have our witnesses, and we rely upon
them.

Those were the guiding principles of the prosecution up to the
last day of these proceedings. They have remained incompre-

* Tr. pp. 11315-11316.

140

hensible to me, because I always believed a criminal to be a man
who did wrong, and because I was of the opinion that even the
prosecution endeavored to be objective, at least after the end of
the presentation of evidence. The final plea by the prosecution,
however, has shown me that I made a mistake. The speech by
the prosecution did not take into account the material submitted
in evidence, but it was a summarized repetition of one-sided state-
ments by the prosecution without taking into account that which
was submitted in the course of the presentation of evidence in
my case.

I am quite convinced that the high Tribunal has gained a true
impression of my activity and of my attitude. Just as I have tried
throughout my entire life to fulfill the tasks allotted to me by
fate according to the best of my capacity and in the full knowl-
edge of my responsibility, so have I also tried to stand this most
serious task before this Court with the aid of the strongest
weapon which I possess — that is the truth.

If there is anything which could console me for the mental
suffering of the last months, it is the consciousness of knowing
that before this Court, before the German people, and before the
people of the world, it has been made clear that the serious gen-
eral charges of the prosecution against the Medical Corps of
the German Armed Forces have been proved to be without any
foundation.

It can be seen how unjust these charges were by the fact that
no charges have been raised or any proceedings initiated against
a single leading doctor of the German Armed Forces in combat
or at home. As the last Medical Inspector of the Army, and as
Chief of the Medical Service of the Armed Forces of Germany,
I think with pride of all the medical officers to whose untiring
devotion countless wounded and sick patients of this dreadful
war owe their lives and cure and their possibilities of existence.
Never and nowhere were the losses of an army medical corps
greater than those among the medical officers of the German
Armed Forces in carrying out their duties.

More than 150 years ago, the motto and guiding principle
created for German military doctors and their successors was
“Scientiae, Humanitati, Patriae” (For Science, Humanity, and
Fatherland). Like the medical officers in their entirety I also
have remained true to that guiding principle in thought and in
deed. Realizing the outcome of the events of these recent times,
may the joint endeavors of all the nations succeed in avoiding in
future the immeasurable misfortune of war, the dreadful side of
which nobody knows better than the military doctor.

141

C. Final Statement of Defendant Rostock*

I have nothing to add to the pertinent statements by my defense
counsel, Dr. Pribilla, regarding the individual points of the in-
dictment in this trial ; but with regard to the general position of
German medical science during this war, there are a few words,
which I would like to say from this dock.

During my direct examination I have already stated why I, as
the Chief of the so-called “Science and Research” department
undertook to work for medical science as late as 1943 and 1944.
At that time the problem was to avoid, or at least to minimize,
the great and acute danger of teaching and research, and with
that Germany’s universities, becoming completely destroyed.
When this had been prevented at the very last moment, there
arose the task and the duty of improving the means and the
possibilities of basic research which had been more and more
restricted in the course of the war, and through dwindling re-
sources research in Germany would have come to a standstill. Due
to the chaotic development of the last year of the war, success
was comparatively small. There were, however, some results and
there were a few things which were saved after the end of the
war.

Today through the evidence produced in this trial, I know the
reasons which paralyzed the work at the time. It was the striving
for power on the part of certain organizations which used the
effective support of certain executive departments of the Third
Reich who held unrestricted power. It was the principle of totali-
tarianism which these organizations followed particularly in the
case of what they called the “university science”. It was there,
however, that we had founded the tradition of German science
recognized the world over. In contrast to that, their aim, as shown
in some of the testimonies given in this trial and some of the
documents submitted, was to found a “politically directed science”
of their own. That was the reason why my personal efforts and
those of the health and medical services, which I have referred
to in this trial, did not achieve complete success. Today, at the
end of this trial, that is now clear to me. At that time, in the year
1944, we did not know of this masterly camouflaged and, there-
fore, so very dangerous opponent to that branch of science with
which I myself had grown up.

Throughout my life I have never worked for one form of a
state or another, or for any political party in Germany, but
simply and solely for my patients and for medical science.

•Tr. pp. 11316-11817.

142

D. Final Statement of Defendant Schroeder

It is very difficult for a defendant to find the right final words
here. In methodical, detailed work throughout the last months, the
defense has tried to rebut the charges of the prosecution.

When now the prosecution states in its final plea that details
do not matter so much, but that the entire complex of questions
has to be considered as a whole, that one has to look at matters
as at a bundle of sticks, not as individual branches and twigs of
the bundle. If, furthermore, the prosecution refers to a sentence
pronounced in the Far East by an American Military Court, by
which a Japanese general and military commander was sen-
tenced only because, as a commander, he bore the responsibility
for all the acts of his troops, regardless of whether he ordered
them, knew of them, approved of them, or did not even know of
them — if, gentlemen of the Tribunal, these principles are decisive
for proceedings, then I have to ask, why bother at all to start
proceedings of that kind, to prepare them, and to carry them out?
Those decisions could be made much more quickly.

What can I, as a defendant, bring against these arguments?
That can be said in a few words : myself, my work, my acts as a
doctor and a soldier in 35 years of service. Not the craving for
glory and honor was the purport of my life’s work, but the firm
intention to put my entire capacity, my full knowledge, into the
service of my beloved Fatherland ; to help the soldier, as a physi-
cian, to heal the wounds caused by wartime and peacetime service,
both as a physician for the individual, as well as a medical officer
for the mass of troops which were in my care.

That was the aim and object of my work. I do not believe that
I have deviated from that path. My eyes always looked towards
the final goal: to help and to heal.

E. Final Statement of Defendant Genzken 2

During my testimony I stated before the Tribunal that I took
no part in the types of experiments of which I am accused. I have
nothing to add to what my defense counsel Dr. Merkel has said.
I have striven to lead a decent life as a doctor and as a soldier.
If my fatherly concern for my 2,500 doctors and 30,000 men of
the Medical Service of the Waffen SS was mentioned here in this
courtroom, it is nevertheless my duty to speak from this place
on behalf of those men who, in the majority, were decent and
brave doctors and medical attendants. I am proud to have been

a Tr. p. 11318.

* Tr, pp. 11818-11319.

143

their leader, a leader of those who sacrificed their lives and blood
with unceasing fervor to help me in building up the organiza-
tion of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and to overcome the
tremendous losses among the ranks of our comrades at the front.

The soldiers of the Waffen SS have proved to history — in the
focal points of uncounted battles during an uneven struggle —
that they could rank among the finest troops on this earth as far
as training, efficiency, readiness of sacrifice, soldierly valor, and
contempt of death were concerned. Actions of modern warfare
have presented to some extent a picture of murder and horror on
both sides. Who dares to raise his head before God and gainsay
that?

The men of the Waffen SS went as vanquished into captivity,
out of unimaginable physical and mental war distress. That cap-
tivity was not free of bloodshed, ill-treatment and degradation of
various kinds. To the men of the Waffen SS there was added to
the weight of such captivity the frightful realization of the fact
that their supreme commander, Himmler, had misused their cloak
of honor and deceived them, that they had been cheated and
then deserted by him. These decent men of the front Waffen SS
certainly did not deserve that fate, the fate of being branded as
members of a criminal organization.

My request and my wish is that our former opponents should
realize the honest idealism of these victims, do justice to it, and
give them back belief in justice.

F. Final Statement of Defendant Gebhardt*

I wish to thank the high Tribunal for having granted me an
opportunity, in the witness box, to describe my personal position
in 1942 in such detail.

The historical situation at that time placed me in a totalitarian
state which, in turn, placed itself between the individual and the
universe. Virtues in the service of the state were paramount vir-
tues. Beyond that I do not know anywhere where the intellect
was not debased as a tool for war. Everywhere, in some way
values and solutions were put into the service of the war. And
here again, in the intellectual field, the first step is the decisive
one. I may be permitted to recall that in the war of nerves, it
was propaganda with and for “medical preparations” which
caused the first step, the order to examine the question of sulfa-
nilamides.

In my final statement today may I be permitted to describe my

* Tr. pp. 11819-11824.

144

entire attitude. In doing so, I may perhaps utilize the most im-
portant of the four American freedoms, that is to say the freedom
of speech, until the very end in such a way that I will refrain
from any denunciation or from incriminating others.

Without exaggerating the importance of my own person, a
physician can only be measured according to his conception of
medical science. Basically, I was neither a cold technical specialist
nor a pure scientist. I believe that I have always tried, for ex-
ample when carrying out surgical experiments, to see every dis-
ease as a human condition of suffering. I did not look on my task
as something to serve my own advantage, or as a cheap gesture
of theoretical pity, but as a personal active support to the trem-
bling existence of the suffering patient. My goal as a physician
was not so much purely technical therapy for the individual
patient, as therapeutical care for the particularly underprivileged
group of the poor, the children, the cripples, the neurotics.

I am anxious that it should be believed that it was not due to
moral baseness nor to the selfish arrogance of the scientist that
I came into contact with experiments on human beings. On the
contrary, during the entire period in question I had experiments
in my field of research carried out on animals. It was only because
I was the competent responsible surgical expert that I was in-
formed about the imminent experiments on human beings in my
field of surgery, which had been ordered by the state authorities.
After the order had been given, it was no longer a question of
stopping these experiments, but the problem was the method of
their execution.

My problems as an expert consisted of the following: For one,
the experiments that had been ordered had to be of practical sci-
entific value, for the purpose of testing immunization to protect
thousands of injured and sick. On the other hand, I considered
humane safety measures for the experimental subjects most im-
portant. The main point for me was never the purpose and the
object of the experiments, but the manner in which they were
carried out. To realize that in a humane way I did not remain
aloof and restrict myself to theoretical instruction in the field of
surgery, but I myself took part, with my clinic and with all its
safety measures.

I hope that this will show that in carrying out experiments I
tried with the best of intentions to act primarily in the interest
of the experimental subjects. We did not take advantage of the
unlimited opportunities given us by Himmler, that is to say, the
surgical experiments were not followed by others. I believe that
as far as was possible at that chaotic period I fulfilled my duty
as an expert, because these experiments did not increase in the

145

field of surgery in spite of the crescendo of the catastrophic
policy. My desire was to help and not to give a bad example.

In seeing my responsibility in this way I, of course, made a
decision for myself. I hope that hitherto I have always faced
criticism, even from foreign countries, without any secrecy, but
also without any feeling of guilt for my activities as an expert.

Through these activities, however, as a military physician, not
through my own initiative, I was brought into contact with con-
centration camps. I can understand how heavily that deadly
shadow must lie upon anyone who was ever active there. In the
ghostly phenomenon of that sphere, which at that time was un-
known to me as well, we can now in retrospect begin to realize
the frightfulness of the negative ideology of extermination becom-
ing combined secretly with the negative selection of the guards.
Only from the documents of the international trial have we been
able to see definitely that of the 35,000 guard troops, only 6,000
were SS men who were unfit for combat. The rest were scum,
conscripts, foreigners, etc., who with the greatest injustice and
to our bitter shame were given the same Waffen SS uniform as
we wore at the front. As head of a well-known clinic, known for
its measures of safety, in the interest of the experimental sub-
jects, within the framework of my duty as an expert as I saw it,
I got in touch with concentration camp doctors. As far as it was
at all possible I tried to exclude that atmosphere from my sphere
of work. That my counter-actions went beyond purely clinical
safety measures for the experimental subjects may, I think, be
seen from the following fact: Of the several thousand foreign in-
mates of this concentration camp — among whom, as we were told
here, there were at least seven hundred Polish women — only 200
were turned over to the Red Cross at the end of the war. Of these
two hundred, however, sixty were my experimental subjects, as
was proved.

Just as I have tried to clarify my actions as a doctor and to
explain my good intentions and possibilities for influence, so my
final thought should be devoted to self-criticism, above all as re-
gards on my moral obligation.

In a parody on the words of Heinrich Heine we see today that :
“Just to have been an SS man is fate in itself”. Although I be-
lieve and hope that in that terrible confusion between the decent
Waffen SS and the executive organization, I did my duty as a
specialist, an officer, and a human being, I still feel bound to
make every form of reparation for this confusion. My possibili-
ties for doing that of course are limited.

Without seeking sensation I offered to undergo an experiment
on myself as proved, and that without any surgical safety meas-

146

ures, as soon as the first opportunity arose. My responsibility for
the execution of the experiments carried out with good intention,
and especially for those who were my subordinates, I have empha-
sized. I have a further criticism and responsibility, which I spoke
of not only now in the dim light of my own defense but already in
May 1945 on the day when Himmler released us from our oath
and from our orders, and he himself left his post without reserve.
It was my endeavor with others to prevent any illegal continua-
tion of an SS conception, and for that purpose to take the burden
off the shoulders of our credulous youth by making the SS gen-
erals responsible.

Today as a private individual I can only repeat what I am ready
to do, at least as far as my former professional standing is
concerned.

Where, in spite of my earnest endeavors, reproach and guilt
seem to cloud the picture in the sphere for which I was respon-
sible, may the consequences affect me in such a way that I may
make the path easier for the younger men who, believing in me,
also joined the SS as surgeons. I believe that this pile of rubble,
Germany, with its wasted biological material, cannot afford to let
these fine young doctors perish in camps and in other inactivity.
Also I know every measure which would make the work easier
for the old German universities and their respected teachers.

I have summarized my point of view in order to help avoid
possible mistakes. From unwholesome social conditions it is a
pathological and deceptive escape, then as well as today — here
and everywhere, to unite and combine spiritual with economic and
political concepts. It is a disastrous error to confuse the organized
unanimity of voices with harmony. Destructive criticism only
brings intolerant lack of cooperation, which interrupts all co-
hesion. The private as well as the public conscience cannot be
subjugated to any official virtue, nor to any temporal moral prin-
ciples. It can only find its place within a God-given order.

In the spirit of “earthly constructive pessimism”, as I wrote
before the war, in this alone consideration for the painful reality
of this social catastrophe seems to be found.

My last sentence is to express our personal gratitude to Dr.
Seidl who has stood by the side of my colleagues and myself so
conscientiously and with such human kindness.

G. Final Statement of Defendant Blome*

I have testified quite openly before this high Tribunal that
particularly up to the outbreak of war I was a confirmed National

♦Tr. pp. 11325-11328.

147

Socialist and follower. I have also explained why I became a Party
member in 1931, and that because political conditions in Germany
at the time were moving with giant strides towards a final con-
flict between Communism and National Socialism, as a result of
the economic chaos and the impotence of the German govern-
ments after 1919. I have said that I joined the National Socialist
Party because I rejected the dictatorial form of the Communist
system. In my book “The Doctor in the Struggle”, which was
put to me by the prosecution here in cross-examination, I also
explained why I went over to National Socialism. This book, how-
ever, which was published in 1941, at the time of Germany’s
greatest victories, clearly shows my repudiation of the Second
World War, to which I do not refer with a single word, not even
a hint, although my experience in the First World War takes up
considerable space in this book.

After the First World War, Germany was in great difficulties.
The situation became progressively worse and more unbearable,
when at the turn of the thirties the economic crisis spread
throughout the world and even seized hold of the United States.
At that time I realized that in such hard times a nation which
is drifting toward despair seeks a leader and follows him in
blind confidence as soon as he can show great successes.

That in the case of Hitler these were only sham successes or
temporary successes the German people realized only gradually,
only step by step, and only at a time when it was too late to shake
off the dictatorship again by their own strength. For years the
German people were deceived by the leaders as to the true situa-
tion. With deliberately lying propaganda, Hitler’s governmental
system until the last moment kept proclaiming final victory to the
German people, even in the winter of 1944, and even in the spring
of 1945, when the Reich cabinet and the Party leaders long knew
that a terrible collapse was imminent. This governmental system
thus irresponsibly imposed on the exhausted body of the German
nation still further useless losses of life and property.

Since the collapse, particularly since the International War
Crimes Trial at Nuernberg, we see clearly that this frivolous
method of betrayal of their own people was a fitting part of the
systematical murder of foreign peoples and races by the millions.

I believe that there is no other example in history of the
boundless confidence of a people in their leader being so bound-
lessly misused and disappointed.

The German people were blinded in their faith in their Fuehrer,
in a leader who constantly pretended to them and the world a love
of peace, a humane character, a selfless care for the people. Thus
the German people became the victim of a political gambler. His

148

unrestrained supreme power apparently knew only the choice
between ruling and destroying. Hitler’s ambition, as I know and
judge it today, had only one aim: At any price to go down in
history as a great man. Hitler achieved this goal 100 percent. He
went down in history as one of the greatest tyrants of all time,
tremendous in his mania for ruling, tremendous in his brutality
in the achievement of his ends, not hesitating even at the murder
of his best friends, his oldest followers, if they were in his way.

Relying upon the blind confidence of his deceived people, Hitler
created a system in which all individualism, all sentiment of free-
dom, all personal opinion of the citizens was nipped in the bud
and turned into slavery.

He succeeded in this with the aid of a very small circle of
closest associates, who had fallen under his hypnotic influence,
in part perhaps themselves deceived by this man, but who became
willing tools in his hand for the enslavement of the German
people and the decimation of whole nations.

Under the fatal influence of a clever, deliberately lying propa-
ganda, against which even other countries were as good as power-
less, the German people and the German doctor, too, believed that
they were following an honorable leader and serving a good
cause ; they all considered it the highest moral duty not to desert
the Fatherland in times of emergency and particularly in war-
time, but to do their duty to the very extreme, especially since
in this war the life or death of the nation was at issue.

During the times of total warfare, the times of air raids,
hunger, and the danger of epidemics, working conditions for the
German doctor were terribly hard ; so difficult that today one can
hardly imagine what German doctors accomplished in those days
for friend and foe alike. Whether we twenty doctors here in this
dock are accused justly or unjustly, it is a great injustice in any
case to defame German doctors in general in public, as is con-
stantly being done. As former Deputy Reich Physicians’ Leader
I know conditions in the German medical profession during the
Hitler period, and I must say even today that in its totality the
German medical profession was efficient, decent, industrious, and
humane. Their willingness to work under the most difficult condi-
tions that one can imagine, their unselfishness to the utmost, their
courage and their helpfulness were exemplary. Beyond all praise
were in particular the numerous old doctors who were already
living in retirement and who, in spite of their great age, returned
to the service of the sick, and those innumerable women doctors
who, married, and often the mothers of many children, deserted
their household duties for the difficult work of medical practice
during wartime.

149

The whole German people knew this, in whose midst and under
whose eyes the German medical professions spent the years of
distress and fright, and who, therefore, will continue to place
unlimited confidence in German doctors.

Of myself I can say that I have always, particularly during the
Hitler period, devoted all my efforts to keeping the medical pro-
fession at a high scientific and ethical level and to developing it.
And I found in this effort the full support of all German doctors,
including the most famous scientists and chief physicians of
medical institutions. Well-known scholars throughout the world
supported this work, which was above [unintelligible] parties and
enjoyed an international reputation.

But in the course of this trial it has become clearer to me day
by day just how criminal the Hitler system was, to which I sac-
rificed in good faith many years of my life, and I am so deeply
moved inside me that I must confess to myself: For years I held
a responsible position in a system which today I must curse just
as much as I curse ali those who forced upon the German people
such a tyranny of crime and debasement of man.

It was my mistake that I stayed in the post where fate had
placed me and in which I had hoped to be able to do good for our
people and my profession. It would often have been simpler to
give up this post when I began to realize, step by step, the de-
pravity of the Third Reich. If I did not do so, but stayed at my
post until the bitter end, I did this because I considered it my
duty, especially in the hard times of total war, and because again
and again I succeeded either in protecting the medical profession
from harm or in preventing crimes against humanity. Even today
I would have to consider it cowardice if I had left my post in
1941 or 1942 only to bring myself to safety or to evade threat-
ened responsibility.

I feel myself free of the guilt of ever having committed or
furthered crimes against humanity.

H. Final Statement of Defendant Mrugowsky*

My attorney and I made every effort during my examination
on the witness stand and by means of the considerable evidence
which we submitted to refute the charges which have been raised
against me, just as much as we tried to assist in ascertaining the
truth.

The outcome of the trial and the evidence against me is in the
hands of the Tribunal and the closing brief, and in the reply to

* Tr. pp. 11828-11829.

150

comprehensive documentation of the prosecution. I am firmly con-
fident on the basis of this trial that this high Tribunal will ex-
amine the evidence objectively and carefully. Thus in my final
speech I merely would like to draw your attention to the fact that
my life in its entirety was solely devoted to my profession and
my science. It was my aim, not by any means to represent some
political ideology, but to go to the university and to reach the
position of a free and independent doctor and scientist.

The prosecution has charged us, the defendants, with destruc-
tive tendencies which were supposed to have been the causes of
our actions. I know that I am free of such tendencies. They never
occurred to my collaborators and myself at any time. In the
Waffen SS too, the troops of which were among the bravest divi-
sions of the German Armed Forces, such tendencies never played
a part.

As far as my own concepts of the ethical duties of the doctor
are concerned, they are contained in my book regarding medical
ethics, and I believe always to have acted according to the prin-
ciples of that book and lived according to them. My life, my
actions, and my aims were clean. That is why now that at the
end of this trial I can declare myself free of personal guilt.

I. Final Statement of Rudolf Brandt*

Now, after this trial has reached its final stage, my conscience
is confronted with the question of whether I consider myself
guilty or innocent. My responsibility, in my opinion, is to be tested
by a three-fold question :

First, did I participate in the experiments directly and actively?

Second, did I at least have any knowledge of the criminal char-
acter of the experiments on human beings?

Third, what, if I had known, could have been my attitude
towards Himmler?

What my basic opinion is of crimes against humanity I did not
only declare myself on the witness stand but this has also been
testified to by a very competent foreign witness, a Swedish
medical counsellor, Felix Koersten.

Before this Tribunal and in the full knowledge of what I say
I confess that I abhor — and did abhor — any crime against hu-
manity in the years past and during my activity as a so-called
personal Referent of Himmler. But I also frankly declare that

* Tr. pp. 11330-11335.

151

perhaps during the course of these last years my way of thinking
was not always in my conscious mind as it is today. But I never
participated in a crime against humanity knowingly, intention-
ally, or with premeditation when passing on the letters, orders,
etc., which Himmler issued to third persons, and the result of
which was the commission of cruelties on human beings.

I am confident that from the evidence and from the content of
the various defense affidavits the Tribunal will be convinced that
in truth my real sphere of power did in no way correspond to
the face value of my official position. My real sphere of power
was extremely small. It did not exceed that of a well-paid stenog-
rapher in the office of an influential man in Germany. If the
Tribunal were to start from this fact, it would approach reality
much closer than the prosecution did in its indictment.

I got into contact with Himmler when I was a young, immature
man who came from a family in modest circumstances. Nothing
else but my ability as a stenographer, which I had obtained
through my industry, was the reason for that, and this was my
position until the last days of the German collapse, in spite of
promotions in rank. At that time I was only too glad to get that
job because it enabled me to support my parents financially.

When I started work with Himmler, I got, without interme-
diate stages, into an agency, the chief of which was to combine,
among other functions, the highest executive powers in his hands
a short time afterwards.

I am convinced that I would not sit here under a grave indict-
ment if I had had the opportunity to continue my education, if
I had made a start in a subordinate agency, and had risen little
by little into a higher position. Unfortunately, I have always
been a lone wolf as long as I lived, and I never was fortunate
enough to have an older friend who could have corrected my
political inexperience and my gullibility.

If, however, through all those years, I represented Himmler’s
ideology, I did so only because I did not know the criminal part
of Himmler’s character. Since I lived, so to speak, divorced from
the world around me and was only devoted to my more than plen-
tiful work, I only learned after the collapse what stupendous
crimes are to be booked on Himmler’s account.

The evidence has shown that I neither knew a concentration
camp nor had anything to do with concentration camps in my
official capacity; nor had any influence on the system of the con-
centration camps, their administration and management, nor on
the treatment of prisoners. For this reason I didn’t know the
measure of the tragedies which were enacted there.

Those matters, into which I had sufficient insight during my

152

restless daily activities to permit me to distinguish between good
and evil, were on a plane where they need not shun the light
of sun.

I do not deny that some of the documents submitted here by
the prosecution went through my hands, but I do deny — and I
pray the Tribunal may believe me — that I knew the contents of
the documents particularly the reports and therefore the essential
core of the human experiments.

I know that appearances are against me. Only these external
appearances led the prosecution to indict me in this trial and to
pass their comment on me during their closing speech, without
penetrating to the bottom of matters. This way they arrived at a
completely wrong appraisal which does not correspond to the
facts and overrates my position and my activities.

These appearances which speak against me will be dispelled as
soon as my real position will be considered in which I found my-
self as [administrative officer] so-called personal Referent of
Himmler for many years. On the witness stand I testified to the
truth, which has been confirmed by witnesses who knew the real
facts from their own experience.

It does not run counter to experience that among thousands
of incoming and outgoing items of mail — that is, hundreds of
thousands during the course of the years — there should be an
insignificantly small number of documents which a personal
Referent on the orders of his chief, passes on to third persons
without knowing their contents more closely, the more so if they
concern matters which have nothing to do with the normal duties
of the personal Referent.

I believe that an American tribunal will know how to appraise
the foregoing, though I am rather afraid that the situation as it
existed in Germany during the years before the collapse and pre-
vailed in high government agencies will never really be brought
home to American judges.

Therefore, I refuse to discuss again my position at that time
and the ignorance of criminal experiments on human beings
which was the consequence thereof. In this respect I agree with
my defense counsel. Neither need I fear Professor Ivy’s statement
who declared that even a layman must have been outraged by
reading the reports of Rascher, because the fact that the layman
should have read the passages of the reports wherefrom the
obvious violation of human dignity is evident was, as a matter of
fact, the natural prerequisite for Professor Ivy’s opinion, and
that prerequisite did not exist in my case.

In accordance with the truth I repeat what I have said in the
witness stand, that I had a general knowledge of experiments on

153

human beings, I can no longer say when and on what particular
opportunity I gained that knowledge. But this fact alone does not
deserve death, because I never had the feeling that I had par-
ticipated in such crimes by my activity in the personal Referat
[administrative office].

Such a knowing participation demands that the personal Re-
ferent knows the contents and the import of Himmler’s letters,
orders, etc., and passes them on in spite of this knowledge of the
contents and their import. I just said that appearances are against
me, but I believe I did prove that I did not possess that knowledge.
I pray the Tribunal to follow the line of this evidence and, I think,
this is not asking too much since the experience of everyday life
speaks in my favor.

The various affidavits which I have submitted and which were
the subject of excited argument have found their explanation. In
some points I have erred and I have tried to correct my errors.
I did not want to speak an untruth knowingly which might be
detrimental or unfavorable to a third person. I ask the Tribunal
not to forget that I was in a very low general condition when I
signed these affidavits. Only a few months previously I weighed
only forty-four kilograms ; consequently my mental power was re-
duced to a minimum.

During my activities which stretched over many years I ex-
clusively acted on the express orders of Himmler without ever
making a decision on my own initiative. I may take it that this
fact has fully been proved.

The question what attitude I should have assumed had I known
the details of inhuman experiments I can only answer in a hypo-
thetical way. Had I had an approximate knowledge, as I have it
today, I would have struggled against passing on such an order
by virtue of my general view on questions of humanity. Since,
however, I did not have that knowledge it could not come to any
opposition on my part. I ask that consideration be given to the
fact that during all those years, I regarded matters which were
in my field from my own point of view, and tried to live up to my
own ideals. I saw my duty in carrying out my task faithfully and
in the conduct of a clean, personal life. I always strove not to
cause any damage to any human being, but to understand the
situation of any person in need of help, and then to help him as I
myself would have wished to be helped or treated had I been
in his position. I remind you of the statement of the witness
Meiner, on 21 March 1947.

The fact that my signatures are on the documents which have
been submitted by the prosecution has moved me deeply because
my entire view of humanity and the principles of humanity is

154

quite opposed to that. What I understand by humanity, also be-
gins to apply to the small details of life also for me.

In spite of my good intentions, and this I say in answer to a
question put in the beginning — in spite of my good intentions I
was drawn into a guilt, I see it as a guilt into which human beings
can be involved by tragic circumstances without any intention on
their part. But the recognition of this guilt was sufficient to shake
severely my mental and moral balance.

J. Final Statement of Defendant Poppendick*

I joined the SS at a time not to commit crimes, but because a
number of my friends whom I knew to be idealists were members
of the SS. Their membership caused me to join. That I thereby
became a member of a criminal organization was unimaginable
for me at that time, just as it is incomprehensible for me today.

My activity in the Main Race and Settlement Office was devoted
to the problem of the family, an activity which in view of the
destructive tendencies during the period of the First World War
seemed important to me. If my expectations as a physician were
disappointed in more than one point, at least I considered myself
justified to hope that in the end this activity would have positive
results. The intentions were always toward a constructive policy
for the good of the family. Never did I have anything to do with
negative population policies, such as the sterilization program of
the state. The assertion of the prosecution that positive and
negative population policies belong together as the two sides of
one and the same program, is erroneous.

Then there were purely organizational reasons which brought
about my direct subordination under the office of that man whose
name today has such an inhuman sound — I mean Grawitz. The
impression which the prosecution has rendered of my activity
and position in Grawitz’ office is not in accordance with the facts,
in spite of some features which seem to support the assertions
made by the prosecution.

As for medical experiments on inmates — experiments on hu-
man beings were nothing surprising to me, nor anything new. I
knew that experiments were carried out in clinics. I knew that
the modern achievements of medical science had not been brought
about without sacrifices. However, I do not recall that in experi-
ments in clinics the voluntariness of the person to be experi-
mented on was an absolute requirement, which now seems to
be taken as a matter of fact, according to the discussions in this

* Tr. pp. 11335-11338.

841684—49—11

155

trial. I knew furthermore, that some scientific problems can only
be solved by experiments in series with conditions remaining
constant, and that therefore soldiers and particularly soldiers in
camps are used for experiments in all countries. Under these cir-
cumstances it did not appear surprising to me that during the
war, scientists also carried out experiments in series in concen-
tration camps. I did not have the least cause to assume that these
scientists in the camps would go beyond the scope of that which
otherwise everywhere in the world of science was customary.
What I knew about medical experiments in the SS was, in my
opinion, as little connected with criminal matters as those ex-
periments of which I knew from my clinical experience before
1933.

In March of this year a young doctor, Dr. Mitscherlich, in a
very one-sided way, published material for an indictment under
the already prejudiced title, “The Dictates of Contempt for Hu-
man Life”. Of the problematic there was little in this book. The
basis for a judgment and a conviction were clearly given. During
the very last days, however, the chief of Dr. Mitscherlich, a well-
known Professor from Heidelberg, Weizsaecker, published a
study on the fundamental questions belonging to this subject
under the title “Euthanasia and Experiments on Human Beings”,
which he submitted to the defendants. But here now fortunately
we find an entirely different language. The problem itself be-
comes obvious. If one reads this booklet then the extent of the
problem with its complications becomes clear.

The oath of Hippocrates, according to Weizsaecker, has nothing
to do with the problem. Weizsaecker applies entirely different
ethical norms. Rightly, medicine of today as a whole is studied,
not only the German medicine under Hitler. It shows that ex-
perts who consider themselves competent even today are only
in the middle of their endeavor to clarify the problems at the
basis, that being the first requirement for their solution.

Before this trial all of these matters were no problems fox
me. I did not know of any transgressions. Moreover, I was always
convinced that anything which came to my knowledge about ex-
periments on human beings in clinics of the state before 1933, and
within the scope of the SS in later years, were conscientious
efforts of serious scientists to the good of mankind.

The ethical foundation of these matters also seemed to be
there until this trial. Therefore, after sincere examination of my
conscience, I cannot find any feelings of guilt and expect with a
clear and peaceful conscience the verdict of the Tribunal.

156

K. Final Statement of Defendant Sievers*

Your Honors, in his opening plea, my defense counsel already
stated quite openly and frankly that all events were going to be
presented with which I was in any way connected, and in this
hour which is so important to me, I can state to the best of my
conscience that when I furnished my defense counsel with infor-
mation, and during my own examination on the witness stand, I
always spoke the full truth.

I have, in fact, had the satisfaction to hear my testimony con-
firmed by a witness for the prosecution. During my examination
as a witness on the stand, I said quite truthfully that the experi-
mental subjects to whom I had talked in connection with the last
experiment in Natzweiler had confirmed to me that they were
voluntary subjects. Witness Nales, witness for the prosecution,
confirmed my testimony during his examination on the 30th of
June in this courtroom.

With regard to the charge of participation in the malaria ex-
periments, I have stated that I had nothing to do with malaria
experiments. Witness Vieweg, called by the prosecution, con-
firmed this testimony of mine, as also did witness Stoehr.

I testified that the two experimented subjects whom I met in
connection with the altitude experiments, in reply to a question
by me, confirmed specifically that they had volunteered. Witness
Neff of the prosecution confirmed this voluntary status of the
witnesses. Likewise Dr. Romberg during his direct examination
stated on the strength of his own knowledge that my testimony
was correct. The only experimental subject whom I met in con-
nection with the typhus experiments upon my definite question
regarding the voluntariness of his testimony, confirmed that this
was so. My testimony was also confirmed through the affidavit of
a former prisoner, and witness, Grunzenhuber, contained in my
second document book.

The prosecution believed that they had to charge me with hav-
ing placed myself at the disposal of the IMT on the behalf of
the SS. This was rather a peculiar statement considering my own
defense in this trial. I explained when I was on the stand that
without my own initiative, in fact against my own will, the
defense counsel for the SS called me in order to use me as a
witness. Attorney Pelckmann, then defense counsel of the SS,
has confirmed the correctness of my statements in an affidavit.
According to that, I immediately informed Pelckmann at the
time in writing regarding my former membership in the resist-
ance movement against the National Socialist regime and told

♦Tr. pp. 11338-11342.

157

him I was not a suitable witness. At the same time I presented
attorney Pelckmann with a copy of my letter, in which I placed
myself at the disposal of the International Military Tribunal as
a witness as early as 20 December 1945, as the IMT record shows.
I have stated my regrets on this same witness stand, that my
preparedness to aid justice and to help in prosecuting past crimes
was not accepted and that considerable evidence was thus de-
stroyed.

As early as August last year, I furnished the prosecution with
a report about my activities in the resistance movement, indicat-
ing again my willingness. This was passed over, however, when
I stated that I was not prepared to sign affidavits which were
not completely true. I openly and frankly stated at that point
that I did not understand this action. I had to do this, and I could
do it because I had been looking for truth and right at the risk
of my life, undaunted, even during the time of tyranny. Was one
now to be a collaborator in methods which I thought had passed
with the National Socialist regime; and which, as remains my
firm conviction, would never lead to a true pacification of this
world such as we all desire? I am mentioning this with regret
and only because I have always claimed that I myself, and my
statements, in responsible situations, deserve to be believed. The
prosecution did not only feel in a position to doubt my credibility,
but they even consented to call me a liar during their argument,
against their better knowledge and their better conscience. Con-
sequently, I had to draw your attention to the testimony of vari-
ous witnesses which confirmed, in full, my testimony on the stand
in these complicated matters. I can truly be satisfied that it was
not up to me, but to the prosecution’s own witnesses, to contra-
dict the incorrect statements made against me. History will
honor such action, and judge the persistent attempt to stick to
preconceived ideas. There is no blessing connected with it. I am
only sorry for those who are misguided by false ideas. My firm
conviction that this high Tribunal will fully believe my testimony
during my defense is based on these facts.

In this connection, with reference to the experiences which I
have just described, I am forced to say how on the other hand it
calmed and strengthened me, and gave me confidence to see with
what wisdom, calm, and patience this high Tribunal stood above
matters and disclosed a conduct of trial in which one could feel
sheltered; all my friends, who fought in the secret resistance
movement with me and repeatedly attended this trial in the audi-
ence, share these sentiments with me.

I have explained to you, your Honors, for what reasons I was
in immediate, direct contact with the NSDAP and the SS. I have

158

told you how I always tried to prevent the Ahnenerbe from be-
coming involved in medical research. This attempt failed, due to
the ambitious attitude of Himmler. Only on the strength of my
own feelings had I to find an attitude with regard to this new
question of experiments on human beings. I did not approve of
them, and I attempted to take the consequence, which could only
be that I immediately resigned from my post as the Reich man-
ager of the Ahnenerbe. I think the testimony of the witness
Hielscher, in this stand, and the affidavits from witness Deutel-
moser, witness Dellmann, witness Schmitz, and others prove be-
yond doubt that I had the true intention of resigning from the
Ahnenerbe. And these witnesses have also clearly testified why I
didn’t do so, not because of personal ambition, not for reasons of
comfort, or for what other low reasons might be attributed to
me in this point. It was due to the persistent urging on the part
of my political friends that I remained, in order to serve further
the task which had taken me to the NSDAP and the SS. In-
wardly I rejected contact with human experiments even as I re-
fused to be a follower of the NSDAP and of the ideology they
represented. Outwardly, I had to live up to the name of a National
Socialist if I was to hold on to the political ideal to which I had
devoted myself since 1929 and not endanger it. In his affidavit,
witness Niebhausen, who was the most important member in the
circle of the secret German resistance, and who has acted on
behalf of Dr. Kempner too, and who is obviously a personality
beyond reproach, says that his illegal activity which continued
for five years would have been quite impossible without my as-
sistance. I do not, indeed, know what the prosecution is prepared
to recognize as being a resistance against the Nazi regime, if
not even such activities as these. It is not necessary to relate
again all the details which have been testified to in this court-
room.

That in true recognition of the consequences which might be
daily expected for myself and my family I devoted myself to re-
sistance, continued in it undaunted, and never abandoned it, is
now the only reason why I find myself in this dock. For that
reason, I look forward to the judgment of this Tribunal with
confidence, due to my conviction that I have lived for a good
cause and acted on it, on behalf of something which — then as to-
day — filled me with true belief.

159

L. Final Statement of Defendant Rose*

Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the scientists who
are among the defendants in this trial are confronted with a prin-
cipal difficulty, the fact that purely scientific questions have been
made political, ideological questions by the prosecution. In the
opening speech by the Chief of Counsel, General Taylor, the
political and ideological nature of the indictment has been ex-
pressed as clearly as possible.

A subject of the personal charges against myself is my attitude
toward experiments on human beings ordered by the state and
carried out by other German scientists in the field of typhus and
malaria. Works of that nature have nothing to do with politics or
with ideology, but they serve the good of humanity, and the same
problems and necessities can be seen independently of any politi-
cal ideology everywhere, where the same dangers of epidemics
have to be combated.

Just as Claus Schilling, in his malaria research, had to make
experiments with human beings, before him and after him
malaria scientists of various nations had to carry out experi-
ments on human beings. Just as Haagen, on his own initiative,
but with the approval of competent authorities of the state, tested
the value of a new, living typhus vaccine, before him that was
done in the course of fighting plague by your great compatriot,
Richard B. Strong, when he experimented on natives of the
Philippines, who were not American citizens, with the approval
of your government.

Just as Dr. Ding, on the instruction of the highest and de-
cisive authorities of the German civilian health administration,
tested the value of the typhus vaccine on humans in times of
greatest typhus danger, others have done so before him in less
pressing emergencies, sometimes in agreement with, sometimes
upon the instruction of their governments.

From the witness stand I testified about the actual role which I
played in regard to the charges of human experiments with
malaria and typhus. And I have explained from the witness stand
the legal evaluation of my actions, and they have been submitted
to you by my defense counsel, Dr. Fritz. I need not add anything
to it. But, as a matter of principle, I stated my attitude towards
the experiments on human beings in medical research, not first
of all in this courtroom, but also when the National Socialist
German Government was at the height of its limitless power. At
that time I was cut short by a man, Professor Schreiber, who

*Tr. pp. 11342-11347.

160

about a year ago in this very courtroom, claimed to be a de-
fender of medical ethics.

The fact is undoubted that human experiments, which were
exactly the same as those, the participation in which I am un-
justly charged with, have been carried out in other countries,
above all, in the United States which has indicted me. That has
led the prosecution to place the center of gravity of its charges
upon the outside conditions of the persons put at my disposal for
experiments by the German authorities. In that connection the
question of whether they were voluntary was put into the fore-
ground. I shall not discuss the question as to what extent the
doctor who is charged with the experiments is responsible for
these external, formal questions, at least a doctor who was so
far removed from the experiments themselves as I was. But in
connection with the principal question of subjects being volun-
teers, I have to make a few statements. A trial of this kind pre-
sents probably the most unsuitable atmosphere to discuss ques-
tions of medical ethics. But since these questions have been raised
here, they have to be answered. Everyone who, as a scientist, has
an insight into the history of dangerous medical experiments,
knows with certainty the following fact. Aside from the self-
experiments of doctors, which represent a very small minority of
such experiments, the extent to which subjects are volunteers is
often deceptive. At the very best they amount to self-deceit on
the part of the physician who conducts the experiment, but very
frequently to a deliberate misleading of the public. In the ma-
jority of such cases, if we ethically examine facts, we find an
exploitation of the ignorance, the frivolity, the economic distress,
or other emergency on the part of the experimental subjects.
I may only refer to the example which was presented to the Tri-
bunal by Dr. Ivy when he presented the forms for the American
malaria experiments.

You yourselves, gentlemen of the Tribunal, are in a position to
examine whether, on the basis of the information contained in
these forms, individuals of the average education of an inmate of
a prison can form a sufficiently clear opinion of the risks of an
experiment made with pernicious malaria. These facts will be
confirmed by any sincere and decent scientist in a personal con-
versation, though he would not like to make such a statement in
public. That I myself am, on principle, an opponent of the idea
of dangerous experiments on human beings is known to you
gentlemen of the Tribunal.

The state, however, or any human community which, in the in-
terest of the well-being of the entire community, did not want to
forego the experiments on human beings, only bases itself on

161

ethical principles as long as it openly assumes the full responsi-
bility which arises therefrom, and imposes sacrifices on enemies
of society to atone for their crimes and does not choose the
method of apparent voluntary submission, which imposes the
risk of the experiment on the experimental subjects, who are not
in a position to foresee the possible consequences.

The prosecutor in his plea criticized the preponderance of affi-
davits during the presentation of evidence on the part of the
defense. The difficulties which exist for a defendant in prison in
the Germany of today to acquire other documents are almost pro-
hibitive. In order to give a few examples: When the malaria ex-
periments of Schilling were discussed, the prosecution, among
other material, submitted to the Tribunal an excerpt from the
well-known Dachau sentence concerning the statements contained
therein about the number of victims in these experiments. I have
stated in the witness box that I would rather sit here as a de-
fendant than put my signature on the opinion which would con-
firm these statements. How right I was in making that statement
can be seen from a letter by Professor Allenby of the University
of London which, unfortunately, has only now been received by
my defense counsel, in which he termed the statement that 300
experimental subjects had died, a grotesque untruth. My defense
counsel in his final plea has quoted the passage of that letter.

The prosecution at that time when the excerpt of the Dachau
sentence was submitted, promised that the entire files of the
Dachau trial would be put at our disposal. Unfortunately, all my
efforts to gain an insight in these files have been in vain.

When State Secretary Dr. Conti during the war was toying with
the idea to commission Professor Schilling, who was at that time
in Italy, with malaria research in Germany, I, at that time, Chief
of the Tropical Medical Department of the Robert Koch Institute,
was first of all assigned by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to
give an opinion. In this opinion, for reasons which I have ex-
plained in the witness box, I rejected Schilling’s plan. Had one
followed my advice, the experiments by Schilling in Dachau would
never have taken place. In the course of these proceedings I
made all efforts to come into the possession of that opinion but in
this case also I was unsuccessful, although that opinion in two
copies is in the hands of the military government, possibly even
in this building.

Also, in vain, I attempted to get the file note, so important for
my defense, which I dictated to the witness Block about my con-
ferences with State Secretary Conti and President Gildemeister,
after I had gained knowledge about the conduct of the typhus
experiments in Buchenwald. What little correspondence I had

162

with Professor Haagen is apparently entirely in the hands of
the prosecution. In spite of that, it has been submitted only in
part to you. That fact offered an opportunity to the prosecution
to interpret passages taken out of the context incorrectly. Un-
fortunately, I have no opportunity to force anyone to submit the
missing documents which would clarify matters in my favor.

To evaluate the work of Haagen, and my defense counsel has
pointed that out already, the statement of an unbiased expert
would have been of decisive importance. Therefore, I can only
regret that the interrogation of the Frenchman Georges Blanc
for whom I applied and who has the best knowledge in this field,
did not take place, although he had volunteered to appear before
this Tribunal as an expert.

Professor Lecrout, Director of the Institute Pasteur in Paris,
was frequently in Nuernberg during this trial. After an inter-
view, the prosecution refrained from calling him as an expert
witness to clarify some difficult questions resulting from the work
of Haagen. I ask the high Tribunal to draw its conclusions from
these facts and to assure that the lack of these pieces of evidence
should not result in a damage to my interests.

Prosecutor McHaney has explained in his plea that one still
had to find that doctor among the defendants who would have
subjected himself to such experiments as are covered by the in-
dictment here. I do not feel that that concerns me. Not only
from the statement which I have made here before you but also
from my case history, which was available to the authorities of
the prison long before indictment, it can be seen that not only did
I repeatedly offer myself as an experimental subject to test vac-
cines but that frequently in my official capacity and in my re-
search work I gave myself injections with cholera, typhus,
malaria and hepatitis epidemica and that I am still suffering
from the consequences.

Finally, Prosecutor McHaney has asserted in his plea that
all of those indicted here are guilty of murder, and that includes
me too. If the Tribunal were to look at the present problem from
this point of view, I would regret having said a single word in my
defense. However, if you believe me, that in all actions of mine
which have been discussed here, I was only moved by sincere
devotion to duty, then I put my fate with confidence into your
hands.

M. Final Statement of Defendant Ruff*

May it please the Tribunal: As far as the written and oral
statements of my defense counsel are concerned which deal with

* Tr. pp. 11347-11348.

163

the points of the indictment, and as far as my activities as a
doctor and scientist are concerned, I have nothing or hardly any-
thing to add. I can only repeat today what I said at the end of
my examination when I was on the stand. After detailed inquiry
into my conscience, I still today hold the belief that I never sinned
against my duty as a man and as a doctor.

N. Final Statement of Defendant Brack*

Your Honor, I cannot be described as one of the earliest fol-
lowers of Hitler. In 1929, I joined the NSDAP when more than
six million German voters were already backing Hitler. His later
successes during the years of peaceful reconstruction consolidated
my conviction that he had forever liberated Germany from the
misery in which it seemed to have fallen. For all those years I
had no reason to have any misgivings with regard to Hitler’s per-
sonality. Therefore I also believed in the legality of the euthanasia
decree as it emanated directly from the head of the state. The
state officials and doctors, competent for me at that time, told me
that euthanasia had always been an endeavor of mankind and was
morally as well as medically justified. Therefore, I never doubted
the legal character of the euthanasia decree.

In this connection, however, I was assigned duties, the extent
and importance of which I could not foresee. Neither my training
nor my qualifications sufficed for this task. Nobody can deny,
however, my good faith in its justification. I frankly admitted
what I did in the framework of the euthanasia measures and
tried to prove that my collaboration was merely of a subordinate
nature and exclusively directed by human aspects. I cannot be
made responsible for later actions carried out by other offices
and without my knowledge. These were the measures which I
deeply regretted, in which the prohibition of the inclusion of
foreign nationals and Jews was infringed.

Through my activity in the Fuehrer’s Chancellery, I early be-
came acquainted with the Gestapo terror. The testimonies of my
witnesses prove how I fought against them and the concentra-
tion camp system. I did so because I felt that I was obliged to
help those who suffered from arbitrariness and oppression. I
did not do it because I already recognized in it at that time symp-
toms of a leadership that always and only knew arbitrariness and
oppression.

But this is particularly the reason why I was so shocked about
the misuse of some of the euthanasia institutions for the Action
14 f 13; this action affected particularly those persons whose

* Tr. pp. 11348-11351.

164

detention I considered unjust, and which I therefore opposed.
It was only in this courtroom, however, that I learned of this
action.

That I did not hate the Jews has been proved by numerous
documents. Without hatred of the Jews, however, participation
in the extermination of Jews is unthinkable. The measures of
suppression to which the Jews were subjected forced me to give
them the same assistance within my competence as I accorded to
the political persecutees. Thus during the course of the years I
helped hundreds of thousands of persons by my activity. Thus
only could the sterilization suggestions come into existence. They
were nothing but an attempt to prevent the extermination of
innumerable Jews.

In spite of all the efforts of my defense counsel, it was im-
possible to procure the witnesses who could testify to this effect.
They preferred to evade their responsibility of serving the truth.
I am utterly alone. I must leave it to this high Tribunal to ascer-
tain on the basis of the presented expert scientific opinions that
all my proposals were actually so formulated as to show my con-
victions of their harmlessness, and the impossibility of realizing
them.

I must also leave it to the Tribunal to judge whether a man
who intended the extermination of the Jews would apply for
service with the army, just at the moment when the aim which
he is alleged to have pursued was achieved, and the extermination
measures had started. Or does it not appear paradoxical to as-
sume that one and the same man should give his approval of the
extermination of the Jews, and in fact aid such a program, and,
at the same time, save Jews he has never known, such as Georgii,
Passow, Meyer, Warburg, and others, from these measures?

I can only emphasize that particularly the sterilization sugges-
tions to Himmler appeared to me to be the last possibility to take
any action to save Jewry. Had I been indifferent to the Jewish
fate, I would not be accused today. But I also tried in this re-
spect, as was my habit, to give assistance and I am still convinced,
that it had at least delaying, if not preventative effect. It is certain
that many Jews were in this way saved from destruction. The
realization that such proposals should never have been made by
me on the strength of my medical knowledge, my capacities, or
my position at the time, even to the best of my intention, is some-
thing I could not reach until this trial was in progress. My good
intention, which was the basis of these proposals, and my good
will to help by means of them cannot be denied by anybody, and
can in no event be understood as my conscious cooperation in the
extermination of the Jews.

165

O. Final Statement of Defendant Romberg 1

In the course of this trial, I have had full opportunity to speak
in my defense. With special gratitude we realize the great oppor-
tunity offered to us, of which we took advantage, which was
given by the possibility of individually questioning Professor Ivy
in this trial. I have seen how the Tribunal itself, by a precise
questioning, clarified the facts, and to the statements made by my
defense counsel I have nothing to add, because they are the
truth.

P. Final Statement of Defendant Becker-Freyseng 2

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I also was given
opportunity to submit all the statements and the evidence re-
quired to refute the charges of the indictment. For that I have
to thank the Tribunal and my defense counsel, Dr. Tipp. But I
have nothing to add to it. For all the irrelevant, spiteful talk
with which outside circles believed they had to twist around the
objectivity of these proceedings like thorn bushes, the verdict
of this Tribunal must be and will be the appropriate answer. I
look forward to it with the firm conviction that I never failed in
my duty to mankind as a physician and scientist, and as a soldier
to my Fatherland.

Q. Final Statement of Defendant Weltz 3

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my defense
counsel. I thank Dr. Wille for his efforts made in my defense.

R. Final Statement of Defendant Schaefer 4

May it please the Tribunal, since I consider myself entirely
innocent, I have nothing more to add. I ask to be acquitted, if
possible, even before the verdict.

S. Final Statement of Defendant Hoven 1

I have nothing to add to Dr. Gawlik’s plea of yesterday. I
would at this point like to thank my defense counsel for the con-
siderable help he has given me.

1 Tr. p. 11351.

2 Tr. p. 11352.

8 Tr. p. 11352.

* Tr. p. 11352.
8 Tr. p. 11352.

166

T. Final Statement of Defendant Beiglboeck*

May it please the Tribunal, the experiments which I conducted,
I did not carry out on my own initiative, neither according to
the plans of my own, nor spontaneously. The medical part was
played with the knowledge and approval of my clinical teacher,
and civilian superior for more than ten years, I was a disciple
of Eppinger. During those ten years I had come to know and
respect his ways of thought and his superior knowledge. My rela-
tions to him were based on deep personal gratitude and awe-
inspired devotion. If there was anything which he considered
right and important, then for psychological reasons alone, it
would have been difficult for me to believe the contrary.

The experiments were to solve the problem of saving human
life and that had to be approved. It was a military order which
compelled me to carry them out in the atmosphere of a concentra-
tion camp. I struggled against it, and was inwardly opposed to it,
and tried to avoid the task, but I was not successful. So I had to
carry it out.

May it please the Tribunal, in your evaluation of this fact,
please do not fail to consider that this did not happen in times
of peace, nor in a country which granted its citizens individual
freedom of decision in all matters, personal and professional, but
during the bitter days of a most horrible war. What I carried out,
I did in accordance with a plan previously determined and speci-
fied. I did not overstep the limits of my task. I had to require of
my experimental subjects to undergo hardships; they suffered
from thirst with all of its unpleasant sensations, with its physical
and mental characteristics. It was in the nature of the experi-
ments, and this could not be avoided. I did not, however, do this
without first informing myself by an experiment on my own
system of what I expected them to undergo, nor did I expect it
of anyone else, unless I was firmly convinced that he undertook
it voluntarily. It is not true to say that I might have forced any-
body to do it, neither psychologically, by reprisals, nor by threat,
nor by force of arms. Many eyewitnesses have agreed that my
conduct was never brutal or inhuman towards any of the experi-
mental subjects under my care. Among these witnesses are even
some who were brought here to testify against me.

At last, in the final stage of this trial, one experimental subject
could be found who thought it appropriate to introduce a dramatic
note in an atmosphere artificially created. You will decide how
much credibility you will attribute to this witness. Based on a
layman’s misinterpretation of nondangerous, indeed harmless

* Tr. pp. 11352-11355.

167

medical procedures, combined with the uncertain recollection emo-
tionally presented by more or less distorting and misconstruing
my motives, the attempt was made to lend an impression to my
experiments and to my own personality.

In contradiction to that, a few others who came from the con-
centration camp and who loved the truth have painted another
picture which reveals that my behavior in the medical sense, as
well as from the human point of view, was correct, to say the
least. By my experiments, no human life was sacrificed, nor did
they result in any lasting damage to their health. I also believe,
I have proved that I intervened for the inmates, as far as that
was within my power and that I did not consider my experi-
mental subjects as individuals of an inferior type whom I could
well afford to illtreat, for ideological reasons, as has been charged.

For over 15 years as a physician, I always felt the strongest
responsibility for those entrusted to my care. Thousands who
were my patients will confirm it. My assistants and colleagues
have testified to it. I was never directed by any sentiment other
than that of a human being and of a physician. The experiments
as they were actually conducted never went beyond what can be
justified by the physician. I consider myself free of guilt as a
physician and as a human being.

U. Final Statement of Defendant Pokorny*

Your Honors, during this trial I have often asked myself what
I should have done at the time in order to record my true motive
for the letter I had written to Himmler. But I believe that at the
time when I dispatched this letter, I could not do anything else
but to talk to the people in whom I had confidence and who I
knew would not betray me, and confide in them my true reasons.

If today, this letter, which is against me, may seem objective,
then this is a fact with which I must bear, although to the end
I must say in correspondence with the truth that selfish reasons
were not the cause of my writing this letter, but that letter was
written because at the time I had heard facts about Himmler’s
plans, and, because at that time in my position, standing lonely
and slandered because of my family implications in a small town
in Czechoslovakia, I felt that I was able to take the action de-
scribed.

I retain the hope that you, my judges, will draw your conclu-
sions from my conduct and the situation in which I found myself
at the time, and will come to the conviction that the true motive

* Tr. pp. 11356-11856.

168

was a different one than that which is objectively shown by this
letter, and that you will not sentence me but will believe me in
what I have not only told you, my judges, but others previously
during my interrogations and what I have told my friends, at a
time when this present situation had not arisen, in order to clarify
my motives as being true.

With this hope I am looking forward to your judgment, and in
that connection I am thinking of my children who, for years now,
have lived under the protection of an allied power, and who will
not believe that their father, after everything that he has suf-
fered, could possibly have acted as an enemy to human rights.

V. Final Statement of Defendant Oberheuser 1

I have nothing to add to the statements I have made from the
witness box under oath. In administering therapeutical care, fol-
lowing established medical principles, as a woman in a difficult
position, I did the best I could. Moreover, I fully agree with the
statements made by my defense counsel and will refrain, at this
late stage of the trial, from making any further statements.

W. Final Statement of Defendant Fischer 2

Your Honors, when this war began I was a young doctor, 27
years of age. My attitude towards my people and my Fatherland
took me to the front line as an army doctor. I there joined an
armored division, where I remained until I was incapacitated
due to the loss of an arm. For only a very brief period, during
these years of war, I worked as a medical officer in a military
hospital back home. There too, my conception of my duties was
directed by the wish to serve my country. During this time of my
work at home, I received the order, the execution of which made
me a subject of the indictment of this trial.

The order for my participation in the experiments originated
from my highest medical and military superior and was passed
on to me, as the assistant and first lieutenant, through Professor
Gebhardt. Professor Gebhardt was the famous surgeon and much
honored creator of Hohenlychen. He was a scientific authority
whom I looked up to with reverence and confidence. As a general
of the Waffen SS he was my unconditional military superior. I
believed him, that I had been earmarked by him to assist in the
solution of an urgent medical problem which was to bring help
and salvation to hundreds of thousands of wounded soldiers, and
which was to be a cure for them ; and I believed that this problem

1 Tr. p. 11356.

2 Tr. pp. 11356-11358.

169

would mean a question of life and death to my people who were
fighting for their existence. I believed unconditionally that this
order had come to me from the head of the state, and that its
execution was a necessity for the state. I considered myself first
as bound by this order, as were the thousands of soldiers whom
I had seen walk to their deaths during my years at the front,
following an order by the state. This moving impression from
the front bound me doubly, particularly since I had had the
privilege during that time of working in a hospital at home. I
considered myself, particularly at home, doubly bound like every
soldier at the front to obey the order of my Fatherland uncondi-
tionally.

What this order demanded from me had been introduced as
a method of modern medicine in all civilized countries. I was only
concerned in the clinical part of it, and that was taking place
just as a course of treatment in the institute of Hohenlychen, or
any other clinic. What I did was what was ordered, and I did
nothing beyond that order. I believed that I, as a simple citizen,
did Hot have the right to criticize the measures of the state, par-
ticularly not at a time in which my country was engaged in a
struggle for life and death.

I hope that through my unconditional service at the front and
through my two wounds, I have shown that I did not only expect
others to make sacrifices at this time, but that I was prepared at
any time to sacrifice myself with my life and my health. Within
the scope of the order given to me I did what I could, in my
limited position as an assistant doctor, for the life of the experi-
mental subjects and for an exact and proper clinical development
of the experiment. I never could expect and foresee that deaths
would occur. When such fatalities did occur, contrary to all ex-
pectation, I was as shaken by that event as I was by the death
of a patient in our clinic. After that, the experiments were im-
mediately discontinued, and I went back to the front.

Together with Professor Gebhardt, I reported about these ex-
periments to the German public. Like many other Germans, there
are many things which, in retrospect, I see more clearly today
and in another light than in the past years. In my young life I
have tried to be a faithful son of my people, and that brought
me into this present miserable position. I only wanted what was
good. In my life I have never followed egotistical aims, and I
was never motivated by base instincts. For that reason, I feel
free of any guilt inside me. I have acted as a soldier, and as a
soldier I am ready to bear the consequences. However, that I
was born a German, that is something about which I do not want
to complain.

170

XII. JUDGMENT

Military Tribunal I was established on 25 October 1946 under
General Orders No. 68 issued by command of the United States
Military Government for Germany. It was the first of several
military tribunals constituted in the United States Zone of Occu-
pation pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7, for
the trial of offenses recognized as crimes by Law No. 10 of the
Control Council for Germany.

By the terms of the order which established the Tribunal and
designated the undersigned as members thereof, Military Tribunal
I was ordered to convene at Nuernberg, Germany, to hear such
cases as might be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes
or his duly designated representative.

On 25 October 1946 the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes
lodged an indictment against the defendants named in the cap-
tion above in the Office of the Secretary General of Military
Tribunal at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. A copy
of the indictment in the German language was served on each
defendant on 5 November 1946. Military Tribunal I arraigned
the defendants on 21 November 1946, each defendant entering
a plea of “not guilty” to all the charges preferred against him.

The presentation of evidence to sustain the charges contained
in the indictment was begun by the prosecution on 9 December
1946. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case in chief the
defendants began the presentation of their evidence. All evidence
in the case was concluded on 3 July 1947. During the week
beginning 14 July 1947 the Tribunal heard arguments by counsel
for the prosecution and defense. The personal statements of the
defendants were heard on 19 July 1947 on which date the case
was finally concluded.

The trial was conducted in two languages — English and Ger-
man. It consumed 139 trial days, including 6 days allocated for
final arguments and the personal statements of the defendants.
During the 133 trial days used for the presentation of evidence
32 witnesses gave oral evidence for the prosecution and 53 wit-
nesses, including the 23 defendants, gave oral evidence for the
defense. In addition, the prosecution put in evidence as exhibits
a total of 570 affidavits, reports, and documents; the defense put
in a total number of 901 — making a grand total of 1,471 docu-
ments received in evidence.

Copies of all exhibits tendered by the prosecution in their case
in chief were furnished in the German language to the defendants
prior to the time of the reception of the exhibits in evidence.

841584 — 49—12

171

Each defendant was represented at the arraignment and trial
by counsel of his own selection.

Whenever possible, all applications by defense counsel for the
procuring of the personal attendance of persons who made affi-
davits in behalf of the prosecution were granted and the persons
brought to Nuernberg for interrogation or cross-examination by
defense counsel. Throughout the trial great latitude in presenting
evidence was allowed defense counsel, even to the point at times
of receiving in evidence certain matters of but scant probative
value.

All of these steps were taken by the Tribunal in order to allow
each defendant to present his defense completely, in accordance
with the spirit and intent of Military Government Ordinance No.
7 which provides that a defendant shall have the right to be
represented by counsel, to cross-examine prosecution witnesses,
and to offer in the case all evidence deemed to have probative
value.

The evidence has now been submitted, final arguments of coun-
sel have been concluded, and the Tribunal has heard personal
statements from each of the defendants. All that remains to be
accomplished in the case is the rendition of judgment and the
imposition of sentence.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The jurisdiction and powers of this Tribunal are fixed and
determined by Law No. 10 of the Control Council for Germany.
The pertinent portions of the Law with which we are concerned
provide as follows:

Article II

“1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:

* * * H* * H* *

“(b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offenses against persons or
property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war,
including but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deporta-
tion to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian popu-
lation from occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages,
plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of
cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity.

“(c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offenses, in-
cluding but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane
acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions
on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in
violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.

“(d) Membership in categories of a criminal group or or-
ganization declared criminal by the International Military
Tribunal.

“2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity
in which he acted is deemed to have committed a crime as de-
fined in * * * this Article, if he (a) was a principal or ( b )
was an accessory to the commission of any such crime or
ordered or abetted the same or ( c ) took a consenting part
therein or ( d ) was connected with plans or enterprises in-
volving its commission or ( e ) was a member of any organiza-
tion or group connected with the commission of any such
crime * * *.

“4. (a) The official position of any person, whether as Head
of State or as a responsible official in a Government Depart-
ment, does not free him from responsibility for a crime or
entitle him to mitigation of punishment.

( b ) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order
of his Government or of a superior does not free him from
responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitiga-
tion.”

The indictment in the case at bar is filed pursuant to these
provisions.

THE CHARGE

The indictment is framed in four counts.

COUNT ONE — The Common Design or Conspiracy. The first
count of the indictment charges that the defendants, acting pur-
suant to a common design, unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly
did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes
against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10.

During the course of the trial the defendants challenged the
first count of the indictment, alleging as grounds for their motion
the fact that under the basic law the Tribunal did not have juris-

173

diction to try the crime of conspiracy considered as a separate
substantive offense. The motion was set down for argument and
duly argued by counsel for the prosecution and the defense.
Thereafter, in one of its trial sessions the Tribunal granted the
motion. That this judgment may be complete, the ruling made at
that time is incorporated in this judgment. The order which was
entered on the motion is as follows:

“It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter
of the International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law
No. 10 has defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime
against humanity as a separate substantive crime; therefore,
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a
charge of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive of-
fense.

“Count I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge
of conspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the formu-
lation and execution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes
against humanity which actually involved the commission of
such crimes. We, therefore, cannot properly strike the whole
of count I from the indictment, but, insofar as count I charges
the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate
substantive offense, distinct from any war crime or crime
against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that charge.

“This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or
effect of Article 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10,
or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to
offer in evidence any facts or circumstances occurring either
before or after September 1939, if such facts or circumstances
tend to prove or to disprove the commission by any defendant
of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in Control
Council Law No. 10.”

COUNTS TWO AND THREE — War Crimes ancl Crimes
against Humanity. The second and third counts of the indictment
charge the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The counts are identical in content, except for the fact that in count
two the acts which are made the basis for the charges are alleged
to have been committed on “civilians and members of the armed
forces [of nations] then at war with the German Reich [* * *]
in the exercise of belligerent control”, whereas in count three the
criminal acts are alleged to have been committed against “Ger-
man civilians and nationals of other countries.” With this dis-
tinction observed, both counts will be treated as one and dis-
cussed together.

174

Counts two and three allege, in substance, that between Sep-
tember 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants “were principals
in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in,
and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical
experiments without the subjects' consent * * * in the course of
which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutali-
ties, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts.” It
is averred that “such experiments included, but were not limited
to” the following:

“(A) High-Altitude Experiments . From about March 1942
to about August 1942 experiments were conducted at the
Dachau concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air
Force, to investigate the limits of human endurance and ex-
istence at extremely high altitudes. The experiments were car-
ried out in a low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric
conditions and pressures prevailing at high altitude (up to
68,000 feet) could be duplicated. The experimental subjects were
placed in the low-pressure chamber and thereafter the simu-
lated altitude therein was raised. Many victims died as a result
of these experiments and others suffered grave injury, torture,
and ill-treatment. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,
Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick,
Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are charged
with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes.

“(B) Freezing Experiments. From about August 1942 to
about May 1943 experiments were conducted at the Dachau
concentration camp, primarily for the benefit of the German
Air Force, to investigate the most effective means of treating
persons who had been severely chilled or frozen. In one series
of experiments the subjects were forced to remain in a tank
of ice water for periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor developed
in a short time. Numerous victims died in the course of these
experiments. After the survivors were severely chilled, re-
warming was attempted by various means. In another series
of experiments, the subjects were kept naked outdoors for
many hours at temperatures below freezing. * * * The defend-
ants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf
Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and
Weltz are charged with special responsibility for and participa-
tion in these crimes.

“(C) Malaria Experiments. From about February 1942 to
about April 1945 experiments were conducted at the Dachau
concentration camp in order to investigate immunization for
and treatment of malaria. Healthy concentration camp inmates
were infected by mosquitoes or by injections of extracts of the

175

mucous glands of mosquitoes. After having contracted malaria
the subjects were treated with various drugs to test their
relative efficacy. Over 1,000 involuntary subjects were used
in these experiments. Many of the victims died and others suf-
fered severe pain and permanent disability. The defendants
Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf
Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers are charged with
special responsibility for and participation in these crimes.

“(D) Lost ( Mustard ) Gas Experiments. At various times
between September 1939 and April 1945 experiments were con-
ducted at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration
camps for the benefit of the German Armed Forces to investi-
gate the most effective treatment of wounds caused by Lost
gas. Lost is a poison gas which is commonly known as mustard
gas. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the subjects were infected
with Lost. Some of the subjects died as a result of these experi-
ments and others suffered intense pain and injury. The defend-
ants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Ru-
dolf Brandt, and Sievers are charged with special responsibility
for and participation in these crimes.

“(E) Sulfanilamide Experiments. From about July 1942 to
about September 1943 experiments to investigate the effective-
ness of sulfanilamide were conducted at the Ravensbrueck con-
centration camp for the benefit of the German Armed Forces.
Wounds deliberately inflicted on the experimental subjects were
infected with bacteria such as streptococcus, gas gangrene, and
tetanus. Circulation of blood was interrupted by tying off blood
vessels at both ends of the wound to create a condition similar
to that of a battlefield wound. Infection was aggravated by forc-
ing wood shavings and ground glass into the wounds. The infec-
tion was treated with sulfanilamide and other drugs to deter-
mine their effectiveness. Some subjects died as a result of these
experiments and others suffered serious injury and intense
agony. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroe-
der, Genzken, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky,
Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, Oberheuser, and Fischer are
charged with special responsibility for and participation in these
crimes.

“ (F) Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Trans-
planation Experiments. From about September 1942 to about
December 1943 experiments were conducted at the Ravens-
brueck concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Armed
Forces, to study bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, and bone
transplantation from one person to another. Sections of bones,
muscles, and nerves were removed from the subjects. As a re-

176

suit of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony,
mutilation, and permanent disability. The defendants Karl
Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Ober-
heuser, and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for
and participation in these crimes.

“(G) Sea-Water Experiments. From about July 1944 to about
September 1944 experiments were conducted at the Dachau
Concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air Force
and Navy, to study various methods of making sea water drink-
able. The subjects were deprived of all food and given only
chemically processed sea water. Such experiments caused great
pain and suffering and resulted in serious bodily injury to
the victims. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock,
Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick,
Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck are charged
with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes.

“(H) Epidemic Jaundice Experiments. From about June
1943 to about January 1945 experiments were conducted at
the Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the
benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the causes
of, and inoculations against, epidemic jaundice. Experimental
subjects were deliberately infected with epidemic jaundice,
some of whom died as a result, and others were caused great
pain and suffering. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,
Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Pop-
pendick, Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng are charged with
special responsibility for and participation in these crimes.

“(I) Sterilization Experiments. From about March 1941 to
about January 1945 sterilization experiments were conducted
at the Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck concentration camps, and
other places. The purpose of these experiments was to develop
a method of sterilization which would be suitable for sterilizing
millions of people with a minimum of time and effort. These
experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery, and
various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized and thereby
suffered great mental and physical anguish. The defendants
Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppen-
dick, Brack, Pokorny, and Oberheuser are charged with special
responsibility for and participation in these crimes.

“ (J) Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber) * Experiments. From about
December 1941 to about February 1945 experiments were con-
ducted at the Buchenwald and Natzweiler concentration camps,
for the benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the
effectiveness of spotted fever and other vaccines. At Buchen-

* A more correct translation is typhus, see vol. I, p. 13.

177

wald, numerous healthy inmates were deliberately infected with
spotted fever virus in order to keep the virus alive; over 90
percent of the victims died as a result. Other healthy inmates
were used to determine the effectiveness of different spotted
fever vaccines and of various chemical substances. In the course
of these experiments 75 percent of the selected number of in-
mates were vaccinated with one of the vaccines or nourished
with one of the chemical substances and, after a period of 3 to
4 weeks, were infected with spotted fever germs. The remain-
ing 25 percent were infected without any previous protection
in order to compare the effectiveness of the vaccines and the
chemical substances. As a result, hundreds of the persons ex-
perimented upon died. Experiments with yellow fever, smallpox,
typhus, paratyphus A and B, cholera, and diphtheria were also
conducted. Similar experiments with like results were conducted
at Natzweiler concentration camp. The defendants Karl Brandt,
Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf
Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, Becker-Frey-
seng, and Hoven are charged with special responsibility for and
participation in these crimes.

“ ( K ) Experiments with Poison. In or about December 1943
and in or about October 1944 experiments were conducted at
the Buchenwald concentration camp to investigate the effect of
various poisons upon human beings. The poisons were secretly
administered to experimental subjects in their food. The victims
died as a result of the poison or were killed immediately in order
to permit autopsies. In or about September 1944 experimental
subjects were shot with poison bullets and suffered torture and
death. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Pop-
pendick are charged with special responsibility for and partic-
ipation in these crimes.

“ (L) Incendiary Bomb Experiments. From about November
1943 to about January 1944 experiments were conducted at the
Buchenwald concentration camp to test the effect of various
pharmaceutical preparations on phosphorus burns. These burns
were inflicted on experimental subjects with phosphorus matter
taken from incendiary bombs, and caused severe pain, suffering,
and serious bodily injury. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt,
Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special responsi-
bility for and participation in these crimes.”

In addition to the medical experiments, the nature and purpose
of which have been outlined as alleged, certain of the defendants
are charged with criminal activities involving murder, torture, and
ill-treatment of non-German nationals as follows :

178

“7. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants
Rudolf Brandt and Sievers * * * were principals in, accessories
to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were con-
nected with plans and enterprises involving the murder of civil-
ians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war
with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the
German Reich in exercise of belligerent control. One hundred
twelve Jews were selected for the purpose of completing a
skeleton collection for the Reich University of Strasbourg. Their
photographs and anthropological measurements were taken.
Then they were killed. Thereafter, comparison tests, anatomical
research, studies regarding race, pathological features of the
body, form and size of the brain, and other tests were made.
The bodies were sent to Strasbourg and defleshed.

“8. Between May 1942 and January 1944 * the defendants
Blome and Rudolf Brandt * * * were principals in, accessories
to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were con-
nected with plans and enterprises involving the murder and
mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish nationals who were
civilians and members of the armed forces of a nation then
at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody
of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control. These
people were alleged to be infected with incurable tuberculosis.
On the ground of insuring the health and welfare of Germans
in Poland, many tubercular Poles were ruthlessly exterminated
while others were isolated in death camps with inadequate med-
ical facilities.

“9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants
Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven * * * were principals
in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in,
and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the
execution of the so-called ‘euthanasia’ program of the German
Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered
hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals
of German-occupied countries. This program involved the sys-
tematic and secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill,
of deformed children, and other persons, by gas, lethal injec-
tions, and divers other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and
asylums. Such persons were regarded as ‘useless eaters’ and a
burden to the German war machine. The relatives of these vic-
tims were informed that they died from natural causes, such
as heart failure. German doctors involved in the ‘euthanasia’

* Indictment originally read “January 1943" but was amended by a motion filed with
the Secretary General. See Arraignment, vol. I, p. 22.

179

program were also sent to the eastern occupied countries to
assist in the mass extermination of Jews.”

Counts two and three of the indictment conclude with the
averment that the crimes and atrocities which have been delin-
eated “constitute violations of international conventions * * *,
the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal
law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the
internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were
committed, and of Article II of Control Council Lav/ No. 10.”
COUNT FOUR — Membership in Criminal Organization: The
fourth 'count of the indictment alleges that the defendants Karl
Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppen-
dick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer are guilty of membership
in an organization declared to be criminal by the International
Military Tribunal, in that each of these named defendants was
a member of the SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONAL SO-
ZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (com-
monly known as the SS) after 1 September 1939, in violation of
paragraph 1 (d) Article II of Control Council Law No. 10.

Before turning our attention to the evidence in the case we
shall state the law announced by the International Military
Tribunal with reference to membership in an organization de-
clared criminal by the Tribunal:

“In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who
had been officially accepted as members of the SS including
the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS,
members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and the members of
any of the different police forces who were members of the
SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called riding
units * * *.

“The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of
the Charter the group composed of those persons who had
been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated
in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members
of the organization with knowledge that it was being used
for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of
the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members
of the organization in the commission of such crimes, exclud-
ing, however, those who were drafted into membership by the
State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter,
and who had committed no such crimes. The basis of this
finding is the participation of the organization in war crimes
and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this
group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who

180

had ceased to belong to the organizations enumerated in the
preceding paragraph prior to 1 September 1939.”

THE PROOF AS TO WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES

AGAINST HUMANITY

Judged by any standard of proof the record clearly shows the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity sub-
stantially as alleged in counts two and three of the indictment.
Beginning with the outbreak of World War II criminal medical
experiments on non-German nationals, both prisoners of war and
civilians, including Jews and “asocial” persons, were carried out
on a large scale in Germany and the occupied countries. These
experiments were not the isolated and casual acts of individual
doctors and scientists working solely on their own responsibility,
but were the product of coordinated policy-making and planning
at high governmental, military, and Nazi Party levels, conducted
as an integral part of the total war effort. They were ordered,
sanctioned, permitted, or approved by persons in positions of
authority who under all principles of lav/ were under the duty
to know about these things and to take steps to terminate or
prevent them.

PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS

The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect
that certain types of medical experiments on human beings,
when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the
ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of
the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the
basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society
that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All
agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed
in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity
to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise
free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of
force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form
of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge
and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened de-
cision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance
of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should

181

be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the
experiment; the method and means by which it is to be con-
ducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly
come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the
consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages
in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which
may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results
for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means
of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the
results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural
history of the disease or other problem under study that the
anticipated results will justify the performance of the experi-
ment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all un-
necessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an
a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will oc-
cur ; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental
physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that de-
termined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be
solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities
provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote
possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically
qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should
be required through all stages of the experiment of those who
conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject
should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has
reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the
experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge
must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if
he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith,
superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a con-
tinuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability,
or death to the experimental subject.

Of the ten principles which have been enumerated our judicial
concern, of course, is with those requirements which are purely

182

legal in nature — or which at least are so clearly related to mat-
ters legal that they assist us in determining criminal culpability
and punishment. To go beyond that point would lead us into a field
that would be beyond our sphere of competence. However, the
point need not be labored. We find from the evidence that in the
medical experiments which have been proved, these ten principles
were much more frequently honored in their breach than in their
observance. Many of the concentration camp inmates who were
the victims of these atrocities were citizens of countries other
than the German Reich. They were non-German nationals, in-
cluding Jews and “asocial persons”, both prisoners of war and
civilians, who had been imprisoned and forced to submit to these
tortures and barbarities without so much as a semblance of trial.
In every single instance appearing in the record, subjects were
used who did not consent to the experiments; indeed, as to some
of the experiments, it is not even contended by the defendants
that the subjects occupied the status of volunteers. In no case
was the experimental subject at liberty of his own free choice
to withdraw from any experiment. In many cases experiments
were performed by unqualified persons; were conducted at ran-
dom for no adequate scientific reason, and under revolting physical
conditions. All of the experiments were conducted with unneces-
sary suffering and injury and but very little, if any, precautions
were taken to protect or safeguard the human subjects from the
possibilities of injury, disability, or death. In every one of the
experiments the subjects experienced extreme pain or torture,
and in most of them they suffered permanent injury, mutilation,
or death, either as a direct result of the experiments or because
of lack of adequate follow-up care.

Obviously all of these experiments involving brutalities, tor-
tures, disabling injury, and death were performed in complete
disregard of international conventions, the laws and customs of
war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, and Control Council Law
No. 10. Manifestly human experiments under such conditions
are contrary to “the principles of the law of nations as they re-
sult from the usages established among civilized peoples, from
the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience.”

Whether any of the defendants in the dock are guilty of these
atrocities is, of course, another question.

Under the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence every defend-
ant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent of an offense
charged until the prosecution, by competent, credible proof, has
shown his guilt to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And
this presumption abides with a defendant through each stage of

183

his trial until such degree of proof has been adduced. A “rea-
sonable doubt” as the name implies is one conformable to reason
— a doubt which a reasonable man would entertain. Stated dif-
ferently, it is that state of a case which, after a full and com-
plete comparison and consideration of all the evidence, would
leave an unbiased, unprejudiced, reflective person, charged with
the responsibility for decision, in the state of mind that he could
not say that he felt an abiding conviction amounting to a moral
certainty of the truth of the charge.

If any of the defendants are to be found guilty under counts
two or three of the indictment it must be because the evidence
has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant, with-
out regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, par-
ticipated as a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took
a consenting part in, or was connected with plans or enterprises
involving the commission of at least some of the medical experi-
ments and other atrocities which are the subject matter of these
counts. Under no other circumstances may he be convicted.

Before examining the evidence to which we must look in order
to determine individual culpability, a brief statement concerning
some of the official agencies of the German Government and Nazi
Party which will be referred to in this judgment seems de-
sirable.

THE MEDICAL SERVICE IN GERMANY

Adolf Hitler was the head of the Nazi Party, the German
Government, and the German Armed Forces. His title as Chief of
the Government was “Reich Chancellor”. As Supreme Leader of
the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, commonly called
the NSDAP or Nazi Party, his title was “Fuehrer”. As head of
Germany’s armed military might he was “Supreme Commander
in Chief of the German Armed Forces [Supreme Commander of
the German Armed Forces], or Wehrmacht”.

The staff through which Hitler controlled the German Armed
Forces was known as the “Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht”
(OKW). The chief of this staff was Field Marshal Wilhelm
Keitel.

Under the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht were the
Supreme [High] Commands of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
The Supreme [High] Command of the Navy (QKM) was headed
by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz. The Supreme [High] Command
of the Army (OKH) was headed by Field Marshal Walter von
Brauchitsch until December 1941, and thereafter by Hitler him-
self. The Supreme [High] Command of the Air Force (QKL) was
headed by Reich Marshal Hermann Goering.

184

Each of the three branches of the Wehrmacht maintained its
own medical service.

Army Medical Service. The defendant Handloser was the head
of the Army Medical Service from 1 January 1941 to 1 September
1944. While in this position he served in two capacities, namely;
as Army Medical Inspector and as Army [Heeres] Physician.
These positions required the maintenance of two departments,
each separate from the other. At one time or another there were
subordinated to Handloser in these official capacities the following
officers, among others: Generalarzt Professor Schreiber and Pro-
fessor Rostock; Oberstabsaerzte Drs. Scholz, Eyer, Bernhard
Schmidt and Craemer; Oberstabsaerzte Professor Gutzeit and
Professor Wirth; Stabsarzt Professor Kliewe and Professor Kil-
lian, and Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen. Under his supervision in either
or both of his official capacities were the Military Medical Acad-
emy, the Typhus and Virus Institute of the OKH at Cracow
[Krakow] and Lemberg [Lvov] , and the Medical School for Moun-
tain Troops at St. Johann.

Luftwaffe Medical Service. From the beginning of the war until
1 January 1944 Hippke was Chief of the Medical Service of the
Luftwaffe. On that date the defendant Schroeder succeeded Hippke
and remained in that position until the end of the war.

Subordinated to Schroeder as Chief of the Medical Service of
the Luftwaffe were the following defendants : Rose, who was con-
sulting medical officer on hygiene and tropical medicine; Weltz,
who was chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich;
Becker-Freyseng, a consultant for aviation medicine in Schroe-
aer’s office; Ruff, the chief of the Institute for Aviation Med-
icine in the German Experimental Institute for Aviation in Ber-
lin; Romberg, Ruff's chief assistant, who toward the end of
the war attained the position of a department head at the
Institute; Schaefer, who, in the summer of 1942, was assigned
to the staff of the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine in
Berlin to do research work on the problem of sea emergency;
and Beiglboeck, a Luftwaffe officer who performed medical experi-
ments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau in July 1944 for
the purpose of determining the potability of processed sea water.

Under Schroeder's jurisdiction as Chief of the Luftwaffe Med-
ical Service was the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe at Berlin.

SS Medical Service . One of the most important branches of the
Nazi Party was the Schutzstaffel of the NSDAP, commonly
known as the SS. Heinrich Himmler was chief of the SS with the
title of Reichsfuehrer SS, and on his personal staff, serving in vari-
ous and sundry official capacities was the defendant Rudolf
Brandt.

185

The SS maintained its own medical service headed by a certain
Dr. Grawitz, who held the position of Reich Physician SS and
Police.

Medical Service of the Waffen SS. The SS branch of the Nazi
Party, in turn, was divided into several components, of which
one of the most important was the Waffen, or Armed, SS. The
Waffen SS was formed into military units and fought at the front
with units of the Wehrmacht. Such medical units of the Waffen
SS as were assigned to the field, became subordinated to the Med-
ical Service of the Army, which was supervised by Handloser.

The Chief of the Waffen SS Medical Service was the defendant
Genzken. His immediate superior was Reich Physician SS and
Police Grawitz.

Six other defendants in the dock were members of the Medical
Service of the SS, under Grawitz, namely ; Gebhardt, who in 1940
became surgical adviser to the Waffen SS and who in August
1943 created and took over the position of chief clinical officer
of the Reich Physician SS and Police; Mrugowsky, who became
Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Genzken
in November 1940, and when the Institute was taken from
Genzken’s supervision on 1 September 1943 and placed under
direct subordination to Grawitz, remained as chief; Poppendick,
who in 1941 was appointed Chief Physician of the Main Race and
Settlement Office in Berlin and who in 1943 also became chief
of the personal staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police ; Hoven,
who from the beginning of 1941 until July 1942, served as the
assistant, and from then to September 1943, as chief physician
at the Buchenwald concentration camp; Fischer, an assistant
physician to the defendant Gebhardt; and finally the defendant
Oberheuser, who in December 1940 became a physician at the
Ravensbrueck concentration camp, and thereafter, from June
1943 until the end of the war, served as an assistant physician
under the defendant Gebhardt at Hohenlychen.

Civilian Medical Service . Throughout the war the Civilian Med-
ical Services of the Reich were headed by a certain Dr. Leonardo
Conti. Conti had two principal capacities (1) he was the State
Secretary for Health in the Ministry of the Interior of the Gov-
ernment; in this capacity he was a German civil servant sub-
ordinated to the Minister of the Interior — first Wilhelm Frick
and later, Heinrich Himmler; (2) he was the Reich Health Leader
of the Nazi Party; in this capacity he was subordinated to the
Nazi Party Chancellery, the Chief of which was Martin Bormann.
In his capacity as Reich Health Leader, Conti had as his deputy
the defendant Blome.

Reorganization of Wehrmacht Medical Service . In 1942 a re-

186

organization of the various medical services of the Wehrmacht
was effected. By a Fuehrer decree of 28 July 1942, Handloser
became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, while
at the same time retaining his position as Chief Physician of the
Army and Army Medical Inspector. Under the decree referred to,
Handloser was given power and authority to supervise and
coordinate “all tasks common to the Medical Services of the
Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and the organizations and units sub-
ordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht.” He was also commanded
“to represent the Wehrmacht before the civilian authorities in
all common medical problems arising in the various branches of
the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and organizations and units sub-
ordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht” and “to protect the in-
terests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures taken by the
civilian authorities.”

Handloser thus became supreme medical leader in the military
field, as was Conti in the civilian health and medical service.

By a subsequent Fuehrer decree of 7 August 1944 Handloser
was relieved of his duties as Chief Physician of the Army and
Army Medical Inspector, but retained his position as Chief of the
Wehrmacht Medical Service.

By the decree of 28 July 1942 pursuant to which Handloser
became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, the
defendant Karl Brandt became empowered, subordinate only to,
and receiving instructions directly from, Hitler “to carry out
special tasks and negotiations to readjust the requirements for
doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the military
and the civilian sectors of the Health and Medical Services.” The
decree also directed that Brandt “is to be kept informed about the
fundamental events in the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht and
in the Civilian Health Service” and “is authorized to intervene
in a responsible manner.”

A subsequent decree issued 5 September 1943 extended the
powers of the defendant Karl Brandt by providing: “The pleni-
potentiary for the Medical and Health Services * * * is charged
with centrally coordinating and directing the problems and ac-
tivities of the entire Medical and Health Service according to
instructions. In this sense this order applies also to the field of
medical science and research, as well as to the organizational
institutions concerned with the manufacture and distribution of
medical material. The plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health
services is authorized to appoint and commission special deputies
for this sphere of action.”

By a later decree of 25 August 1944 Karl Brandt was made

841584 — 49—13

187

Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and Health for the duration
of the war ; the decree providing :

“In this capacity his office ranks as highest Reich Authority”
and he is “authorized to issue instructions to the offices and
organizations of the State, Party, and Wehrmacht which are
concerned with the problems of the medical and health services.”

Thus, by this series of decrees, the defendant Karl Brandt,
within this sphere of competence, became the supreme medical
authority of the Reich subordinate to no one but Hitler.

Three of the defendants are not physicians.

The first is the defendant Brack who became subordinated to
Bouhler at the time the latter was appointed Chief of the Chancel-
lery of the Fuehrer, in 1934, and remained with Bouhler through-
out the war.

The second is the defendant Rudolf Brandt who, from the time
he joined the staff of Himmler in 1933, served for a twelve-year
period in varying capacities. At first Rudolf Brandt was a mere
clerk in the staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS but by 1936 had risen
to chief of the personal staff of Himmler. In 1938 or 1939 he be-
came Himmler’s liaison officer to the Ministry of the Interior and
particularly to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. When
Himmler became Minister of the Interior in 1943 Rudolf Brandt
became Chief of the Ministerial Office; when Himmler became
President of the Ahnenerbe Society, Rudolf Brandt became liaison
officer between Himmler and the Reich Secretary of the Ahnenerbe
Society, defendant Wolfram Sievers.

The third is the defendant Sievers, who was a member of
Himmler’s personal staff and Reich Business Manager of the
Ahnenerbe Society from 1 July 1935 until the end of the war.

THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY

The Ahnenerbe Society, of which Sievers was Reich Business
Manager, was in existence as an independent entity as early
as 1933. On 1 July 1935 the Ahnenerbe became duly registered
as an organization to conduct or further “research on the locality,
mind, deeds and heritage of the Northern race of Indo-Germans
and to pass on the results of this research to the people in an
interesting manner.” On 1 January 1942 the Society became part
of the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS and thereby a section
of the SS. Its management was composed of Heinrich Himmler
as President, Professor Dr. Wuest, Rector of the University of
Munich, as Curator, and the defendant Sievers as Reich Business
Manager. Subsequently, during the same year, the Institute of

188

Military Scientific Research was established as a part of the
Ahnenerbe. Its purposes are defined in a letter written by Himmler
to Sievers, which directed the following with reference to the
Ahnenerbe :

“1. To establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research.

2. To support in every possible way the research carried out
by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and to promote
all corresponding research and undertakings.

3. To make available the required apparatus, equipment, ac-
cessories and assistants, or to procure them.

4. To make use of the facilities available in Dachau.

5. To contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administra-
tive Main Office with regards to the costs which can be borne
by the Waffen SS.”

In its judgment, the International Military Tribunal made the
following findings of fact with reference to the Ahnenerbe:

“Also attached to the SS main offices was a research founda-
tion known as the Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists
attached to this organization are stated to have been mainly
honorary members of the SS. During the war an institute for
military scientific research became attached to the Ahnenerbe
which conducted extensive experiments involving the use of
living human beings. An employee of this institute was a cer-
tain Dr. Rascher, who conducted these experiments with the
full knowledge of the Ahnenerbe, which were subsidized and
under the patronage of the Reichsfuehrer SS who was a trustee
of the foundation.”*

We shall now discuss the evidence as it pertains to the cases of
the individual defendants.

The evidence conclusively shows that the German word “Fleck-
fieber” which is translated in the indictment as “spotted fever”
is more correctly translated by “typhus.” This is admitted, and
in this judgment, in accord with the evidence, we use the word
typhus instead of “spotted fever.”

KARL BRANDT

The defendant Karl Brandt is charged with special respon-
sibility for, and participation in, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas,
Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone

• Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuernberg, 1947*

189

Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, Sterilization,
and Typhus Experiments, as alleged under counts two and three
of the indictment. He is also charged in counts two and three with
criminality in connection with the planning and carrying out of
the Euthanasia Program of the German Reich. Under count four
of the indictment he is charged with membership in the SS, an
organization declared criminal by the judgment of the Interna-
tional Military Tribunal.

Karl Brandt was born 8 January 1904 at Muehlhausen, Al-
sace, then a portion of Germany, studied medicine, and passed his
medical examination in 1928. He joined the National Socialist
Party in January 1932, and became a member of the SA in 1933.
He became a member of the Allgemeine SS in July 1934 and was
appointed Untersturmfuehrer on the day he joined that organiza-
tion. During the summer of 1934 he became Hitler’s “Escort
Physician” — as he describes the office.

He was promoted to the grade of Obersturmfuehrer in the
Allgemeine SS on 1 January 1935, and in 1938 was classed as de-
ferred in order that in case of war he might be free to serve on
the staff of the Reich Chancellery in Hitler’s headquarters. Dur-
ing the month of April 1939 Karl Brandt was promoted to the
rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer in the Allgemeine SS. In 1940 he
was transferred from the Allgemeine SS to the Waffen SS, in
which commissions were equivalent to those of the army. On 30
January 1943 he received a grade equivalent to that of major
general in the Waffen SS, and on 20 April 1944 was promoted to
the grade of lieutenant general in that organization. Having at
some previous date been relieved as Hitler’s escort physician,
he was again appointed as such in the fall of 1944. On 16 April
1945 he was arrested by the Gestapo, and the next day was con-
demned to death by a court at Berlin. He was released from arrest
by order of the provisional government under Doenitz on 2 May
1945. On 23 May 1945 he was placed under arrest by the British
authorities.

By decree bearing date 28 July 1942, signed by Hitler, Keitel,
and Lammers, Karl Brandt was invested with high authority over
the medical services, military and civilian, in Germany. Para-
graphs 3 and 4 of this decree, referring to Karl Brandt, read as
follows :

“3. I empower Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only
to me personally and receiving his instructions directly from
me, to carry out special tasks and negotiations to readjust the
requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., be-
tween the military and the civilian sectors of the Health and
Medical Services.

190

“4. My plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services is to
be kept informed about the fundamental events in the Medical
Service of the Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service.
He is authorized to intervene in a responsible manner.”

By decree bearing date 5 September 1943, signed by Hitler and
Lammers, Brandt’s authority was strengthened. This decree
reads as follows:

“In amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and
Health Services of 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, P. 515) I order:

“The plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services,
General Commissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt, is charged
with centrally coordinating and directing the problems and ac-
tivities of the entire Medical and Health Services according to
instructions. In this sense this order applies also to the field
of medical science and research, as well as to the organizational
institutions concerned with the manufacture and distribution
of medical material.

“The plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services is
authorized to appoint and commission special deputies for his
spheres of action.”

By further decree bearing date 25 August 1944, signed by
Hitler, Lammers, Bormann, and Keitel, Karl Brandt received
further authority. This decree reads:

“I hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and
Health matters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for
Sanitation and Health [Reich Commissioner for Medical and
Health Services] as well, for the duration of this war. In this
capacity his office ranks as highest Reich authority.

“The Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is
authorized to issue instructions to the offices and organizations
of the State, Party, and Wehrmacht, which are concerned with
the problems of the Medical and Health Services.”

Prosecution Exhibit 445, a letter bearing date at Munich, 9
January 1943, signed by Conti and marked “Strictly Confiden-
tial” directed to the Leaders of Public Health Gau Offices of the
National Socialist German Workers’ Party, refers to a decree of
the Fuehrer on “Suspending the Pledge to Secrecy in Special
Cases.” The letter continues :

“For your strictly confidential information I am sending
attached Fuehrer decree and the circular letter I am writing
on that subject to the heads of the medical chambers.”

191

Another portion of the exhibit consists of a copy of Conti’s letter,
also bearing date 9 January 1943, to the heads of the medical
chambers, and reads as follows :

“Strictly Confidential.

“Subject: Fuehrer decree on suspension of pledge to secrecy
in special cases.

“Gentlemen :

“I am sending you enclosed a Fuehrer decree which I re-
ceived from Professor Dr. Brandt.

“Communications having bearing on the Fuehrer decree
should be directed to the following address: Professor Doctor
Karl Brandt, Personal Attention, Berlin W8, Reich Chan-
cellory.

“It is left to the discretion of the physician who is handling
the case whether he wishes to acquaint the patient with the in-
formation himself.”

Hitler’s decree, bearing date 23 December 1942, reads as follows :

“I not only relieve physicians, medical practitioners and den-
tists of their pledge to secrecy towards my Commissioner
General Professor Dr. med. Karl Brandt, but I place upon them
the binding obligation to advise him — for my own information
— immediately after a final diagnosis has established a serious
disease, or a disease of ill-boding character, with a personality
holding a leading position or a position of responsibility in the
State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, in industry, and so forth.”

Concerning this matter Karl Brandt testified that the decree
“in special cases” relieved German physicians from one of the
generally accepted principles of medical practice.

From the year 1942 to the end of the war Karl Brandt was a
member of the Reich Research Council and was also a member of
the Presidential Council of that body.

Karl Brandt, then, finally reached a position authorizing him to
issue instructions to all the medical services of the State, Party,
and Wehrmacht concerning medical problems (Hitler Decree
bearing date 25 August 1944). The above decrees of Hitler dis-
close his great reliance upon Karl Brandt and the high degree
of personal and professional confidence which Hitler reposed in
him.

It may be noted that by the service regulation governing the
Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, issued by Keitel
7 August 1944, the chief of those medical services was required

192

to pay due regard to the general rules of the Fuehrer’s Commis-
sioner General for Medical and Health Departments. The regula-
tion contained the following :

“3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will

inform the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General about basic events

in the field of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht.”

By a pre-trial affidavit made by the defendant Handloser and
put in evidence by the prosecution, Handloser makes the state-
ment that Karl Brandt was his “immediate superior in medical
affairs.”

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Certain sulfanilamide experiments were conducted at Ravens-
brueck for a period of about a year prior to August 1943. These
experiments were carried on by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer,
and Oberheuser — Gebhardt being in charge of the project. At the
Third Meeting of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht
held at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin from 24 to 26
May 1943, Gebhardt and Fischer made a complete report con-
cerning these experiments. Karl Brandt was present and heard
the reports. Gebhardt testified that he made a full statement con-
cerning what he had done, stating that experiments had been
carried out on human beings. The evidence is convincing that
statements were also made that the persons experimented upon
were concentration camp inmates. It was stated that 75 persons
had been experimented upon, that the subjects had been deliber-
ately infected, and that different drugs had been used in treating
the infections to determine their respective efficacy. It was also
stated that three of the subjects died. It nowhere appears that
Karl Brandt made any objection to such experiments or that he
made any investigation whatever concerning the experiments re-
ported upon, or to gain any information as to whether other
human subjects would be subjected to experiments in the future.
Had he made the slightest investigation he could have ascertained
that such experiments were being conducted on non-German na-
tionals, without their consent, and in flagrant disregard of their
personal rights; and that such experiments were planned for
the future.

In the medical field Karl Brandt held a position of the highest
rank directly under Hitler. He was in a position to intervene with
authority on all medical matters ; indeed, it appears that such was
his positive duty. It does not appear that at any time he took any
steps to check medical experiments upon human subjects. During

193

the war he visited several concentration camps. Occupying the
position he did, and being a physician of ability and experience,
the duty rested upon him to make some adequate investigation
concerning the medical experiments which he knew had been,
were being, and doubtless would continue to be, conducted in the
concentration camps.

EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

Karl Brandt is charged with criminal responsibility for experi-
ments conducted for the purpose of discovering an effective vac-
cine to bring about immunity from epidemic jaundice. Grawitz,
by letter dated 1 June 1943, wrote Himmler stating that Karl
Brandt had requested his assistance in the matter of research on
the causes of epidemic jaundice. Grawitz stated that Karl Brandt
had interested himself in this research and desired that prisoners
be placed at his disposal. The letter further stated that up to that
date experiments had been made only on animals, but that it had
become necessary to pursue the matter further by inoculating
human beings with virus cultures. The letter stated that deaths
must be anticipated, and that eight prisoners who had been con-
demned to death were needed for the experiments at the hospital
of the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen. Under date of 16
June 1943 Himmler acknowledged the letter from Grawitz and
directed that eight criminals in Auschwitz, Jews of the Polish
Resistance Movement condemned to death, should be used for ex-
periments which should be conducted by Dr. Dohmen at Sachsen-
hausen. Karl Brandt’s knowledge of experiments on non-German
nationals is clearly shown by the foregoing.

LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS

It is clear from the record that experiments with Lost gas were
conducted on concentration camp inmates throughout the period
covered by the indictment. The evidence is that over 200 concen-
tration camp inmates, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Germans,
were used as experimental subjects. At least 50 of these subjects,
most of whom were nonvolunteers, died as a direct or indirect
result of the treatment received.

Karl Brandt knew of the fact that such experiments were being
conducted. The evidence is to the effect that he knew of Lost gas
experiments conducted by Bickenbach at Strasbourg during the
fall of 1943, in which Russian prisoners were apparently used as
subjects, some of whom died.

A letter written by the defendant Sievers to the defendant
Rudolf Brandt, dated 11 April 1944, points to the fact that Karl

194

Brandt knew of still other such experiments. The letter states,
that in accordance with instructions he, Sievers, had contacted
Karl Brandt, at Beelitz, and had reported to him concerning the
activities of a certain Dr. Hirt, who the evidence shows had been
experimenting with Lost gas upon concentration camp inmates at
Natzweiler. In the letter, Sievers states, further, that Karl Brandt
had told him that he would be in Strasbourg in April and would
then discuss details with Dr. Hirt.

Knowledge of the conduct of at least some of the experiments
was confirmed by Karl Brandt when he testified in his own behalf.
He stated that pursuant to competent authority he had engaged
in studies concerning defense measures against poison gas. He
admitted receiving a report from Hirt, and that one reading the
report could reach the conclusion that human beings had been
experimented upon in connection with injuries from Lost gas.

FREEZING, MALARIA, BONE, MUSCLE AND
NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE TRANS-
PLANTATION, SEA-WATER, STERILIZATION,

AND TYPUS EXPERIMENTS

The evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that
Karl Brandt is criminally responsible on account of the experi-
ments with which he is charged under these specifications.

The defendant Karl Brandt certainly knew that medical experi-
ments were carried out in concentration camps upon human sub-
jects, that the experiments caused suffering, injury, and death.
By letter bearing date 26 January 1943 Karl Brandt wrote to
Wolff at the Fuehrer’s (Hitler’s) headquarters asking if it were
possible to carry out “nutritional experiments” in concentration
camps. The nature of the desired experiments does not appear,
nor does the evidence show whether or not such experiments were
ever made. The letter, however, indicates Brandt’s knowledge of
the fact that human subjects could be made available for ex-
perimentation.

Defendant Rudolf Brandt, by letter dated 4 September 1944,
wrote Baumert, evidently a member of Himmler’s staff, stating
that Karl Brandt had telephoned and requested that Himmler
direct that 10 prisoners from Oranienburg should be made avail-
able as of the next day for two days to test a certain drug. The
letter stated that the prisoners would not be injured by the test.

It appears from an official note filed by Kliewe of the Army
Medical Inspectorate, dated 23 February 1944, referring to a
conversation with the defendant Blome on that date, that experi-
ments concerning biological warfare connected with plant para-
sites, etc., had been made; that up to that date no experiments

195

had been conducted in the field of human medicine; but that
such experiments were necessary and were in contemplation. The
memorandum continues:

“Field Marshal Keitel has given permission to build ; Reichs-
fuehrer SS and Generalarzt Professor Brandt have assured him
of vast support. By request of Field Marshal Keitel the armed
forces are not to have a responsible share in the experiments,
since experiments will also be conducted on human beings.”

It is significant that Hitler’s Chief of Staff should deem it advis-
able to direct that the Wehrmacht should have nothing to do
with experiments on human subjects.

EUTHANASIA

Defendant Karl Brandt is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with criminal activities in connection with the
euthanasia program of the German Reich, in the course of which
thousands of human beings, including nationals of German occu-
pied countries, were killed between 1 September 1939 and April
1945.

On his own letterhead Hitler, at Berlin, 1 September 1939,
signed a secret order reading as follows :

“Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with
the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physi-
cians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons
who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a
most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be ac-
corded a mercy death.”

Bouhler was holding a high office in the NSDAP. He was not a
physician.

The foregoing order was not based on any previously existing
German law ; and the only authority for the execution of euthan-
asia was the secret order issued by Hitler.

The evidence shows that Bouhler and Karl Brandt, who were
jointly charged with the administration of euthanasia, entered
upon the duties assigned them in connection with the setting up
of processes for carrying out the order. A budget was adopted;
the method of determining candidates for euthanasia was estab-
lished ; a patients’ transport corporation was organized to convey
the selected patients to the gassing chambers. Questionnaires
were prepared which were forwarded to the heads of mental in-
stitutions, one questionnaire to be accomplished concerning each
inmate and then returned to the Ministry of the Interior. At the

196

Ministry the completed questionnaires were examined by so-called
experts, who registered their professional opinions thereon, re-
turned them to the appropriate office for final examination, and
orders were issued for those patients who by this process were
finally selected for extermination. Thereafter the condemned pa-
tients were gathered at collection points, from whence they were
transported to euthanasia stations and killed by gassing.

Utmost secrecy was demanded of the executioners throughout
the entire procedure. Persons actively concerned in the program
were required to subscribe a written oath of secrecy and were
warned that violation of that oath would result in most serious
personal consequences. The consent of the relatives of the “in-
curables” was not even obtained; the question of secrecy being
deemed so important.

Shortly after the commencement of operations for the disposal
of “incurables”, the program was extended to Jews, and then to
concentration camp inmates. In this latter phase of the program,
prisoners deemed by the examining doctors to be unfit or useless
for labor were ruthlessly weeded out and sent to the extermina-
tion stations in great numbers.

Karl Brandt maintains that he is not implicated in the ex-
termination of Jews or of concentration camp inmates; that his
official responsibility for euthanasia ceased at the close of the
summer of 1941, at which time euthanasia procedures against
“incurables” were terminated by order of Hitler.

It is difficult to believe this assertion, but even if it be true, we
cannot understand how this fact would aid the defendant. The
evidence is conclusive that almost at the outset of the program
non-German nationals were selected for euthanasia and extermi-
nated. Needless to say, these persons did not voluntarily consent
to become the subjects of this procedure.

Karl Brandt admits that after he had disposed of the medical
decisions required to be made by him with regard to the initial
program which he maintains was valid, he did not follow the
program further but left the administrative details of execution
to Bouhler. If this be true, his failure to follow up a program for
which he was charged with special responsibility constituted the
gravest breach of duty. A discharge of that duty would have
easily revealed what now is so manifestly evident from the
record; that whatever may have been the original aim of the
program, its purposes were prostituted by men for whom Brandt
was responsible, and great numbers of non-German nationals were
exterminated under its authority.

We have no doubt but that Karl Brandt — as he himself testified
— is a sincere believer in the administration of euthanasia to per-

197

sons hopelessly ill, whose lives are burdensome to themselves and
an expense to the state or to their families. The abstract proposi-
tion of whether or not euthanasia is justified in certain cases of
the class referred to is no concern of this Tribunal. Whether or
not a state may validly enact legislation which imposes euthanasia
upon certain classes of its citizens is likewise a question which
does not enter into the issues. Assuming that it may do so, the
Family of Nations is not obligated to give recognition to such
legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and
torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of other
nations.

The evidence is conclusive that persons were included in the
program who were non-German nationals. The dereliction of the
defendant Brandt contributed to their extermination. That is
enough to require this Tribunal to find that he is criminally re-
sponsible in the program.

We find that Karl Brandt was responsible for, aided and
abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with plans
and enterprises involving medical experiments conducted on non-
German nationals against their consent, and in other atrocities,
in the course of which murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures and
other inhumane acts were committed. To the extent that these
criminal acts did not constitute war crimes they constituted
crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Karl Brandt is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.
The evidence shows that Karl Brandt became a member of the
SS in July 1934 and remained in this organization at least until
April 1945. As a member of the SS he was criminally implicated
in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as
charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl
Brandt guilty, under counts two, three, and four, of the indict-
ment.

HANDLOSER

Under counts two and three of the indictment the defendant
Handloser is charged with special responsibility for, and partici-
pation in, High- Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost (Mustard) Gas,

198

Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone
Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, and Typhus Ex-
periments.

The charge of participation in the high-altitude experiments
has been abandoned by the prosecution, and hence will not be
considered further.

Handloser was a professional soldier, having been commis-
sioned in the Medical Department of the German Army in 1910.
During the First World War he rose to the position of command-
ing officer of a division medical unit, and on 1 September 1939
he was appointed Chief Medical Officer of the 14th German Army.
After service in the field, on 6 November 1940 he was appointed
Deputy Army Medical Inspector. He became Army Medical In-
spector on 1 January 1941, and the following April was given
the additional appointment of Chief Medical Officer of the field
forces, holding both positions until 28 July 1942, when he became
Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. He retained also his
other appointment and performed the duties of both positions.
He was retained in his position as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medi-
cal Service on 1 September 1944, but relieved of the duties per-
taining to the other office which he had theretofore held, he hav-
ing exercised the functions of both offices until the date last men-
tioned. His professional career is more particularly described
above.

Handloser states that prior to his last appointment in 1944 he
was authorized to issue ‘‘instructions,” but not orders — testifying
that after his latest appointment he had authority to issue orders
to the chiefs of the medical services of all branches of the Wehr-
macht. He also had jurisdiction over scientific medical institutes,
etc., as designated by the service regulations promulgated at the
time of his last appointment. While the chief medical officers of
the army, navy, and Luftwaffe were under their appropriate mili-
tary superiors, Handloser had authority to coordinate the activi-
ties of all the Wehrmacht medical services and to establish their
coordinated action. As to the Waffen SS, his authority extended
only to such units of that organization as were attached to and
made part of the Wehrmacht.

Handloser testified that the utilization of medical material and
personnel were, insofar as the Wehrmacht was concerned, within
his jurisdiction after the entry of the decree of 28 July 1942, and
that upon occasion he called meetings of the chief medical officers
of the Wehrmacht and specialists in appropriate fields of medi-
cine, in an effort to avoid duplication of certain research problems
in connection with malaria, typhus, paratyphus, and cholera.

As Army Medical Inspector he was also ex officio president of

199

the Scientific Senate, but testified that this body did not meet
after 1942. As an army physician he denied any special knowl-
edge concerning scientific problems peculiarly affecting the navy
or the Luftwaffe ; but on an organization chart prepared by him
and received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 9 he is shown as
subordinated to Karl Brandt and as Chief of the Medical Service
of the Wehrmacht occupying the position of superior over the
Army Medical Service and the chiefs of the Medical Services of
the Navy and Luftwaffe and certain other subordinate agencies
pertaining to the Wehrmacht. The chart also indicates his au-
thority over the Chief of the Medical Office [Service] of the Waffen
SS and components of the Waffen SS when attached to the Wehr-
macht.

It appears that Handloser had much to do in connection with
the calling of meetings of the “Consulting Physicians”; that he
designated some of the subjects to be discussed at these meetings ;
and that his subordinate, Schreiber, arranged the details.

At the Second Meeting of Consulting Surgeons held 30 Novem-
ber to 3 December 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, he
addressed those present (referring to the meeting as “This Sec-
ond Work Conference East”), observing that representatives of
the three branches of the Wehrmacht, of the Waffen SS and
Police, of the Labor Service, and the Organization Todt, were
also present. He called attention to the presence of Conti, Head
of the Medical Services in the Civilian Sector.

At the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians held at Hohen-
lychen, 16 to 18 May 1944, Karl Brandt — in addressing the meet-
ing — said that Handloser, a soldier and a physician, was “re-
sponsible for the use and the performance of our medical officers”.

Schreiber, until 30 May 1943 a close subordinate of Handloser
in his capacity of Army Medical Inspector, was a member of
the Reich Research Council, paying particular regard to the con-
trol of epidemics as his special field. Schreiber frequently re-
ported to Handloser, with whom he had worked for some years.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

Professor Dr. Holzloehner, who with Drs. Finke and Rascher
performed freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates
at Dachau, made reports on at least two occasions to groups of
army physicians concerning cold and freezing problems. The first
such report was made at a meeting held on 26 to 27 October 1942,
which was called to consider problems concerning cold. Schreiber,
who held a responsible position under Handloser from 1 April
1942 to 31 May 1943, was present at this meeting, as was
Craemer, head of the Mountain Medical School of the army at

200

St. Johann, which was also under Handloser ’s jurisdiction. Dur-
ing the meeting and after Holzloehner had made his report,
Rascher also made statements before the meeting concerning
these experiments, from which it was obvious that statements
contained in the reports were based upon observations made by
experimenting on human beings. From the two reports it was
clear that concentration camp inmates had been experimented
upon and that some deaths had resulted.

Holzloehner was invited to lecture again upon this subject at
the Second Meeting of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehr-
macht, held 30 November to 3 December 1942, at the Military
Medical Academy at Berlin. Handloser heard this talk by Holz-
loehner and testified that the matter of cold and freezing was one
of the most important problems to the army.

We think it manifestly clear from the evidence dealing with
freezing that Handloser had actual knowledge that such experi-
ments had been conducted upon inmates at Dachau concentration
camp, during the course of which suffering and deaths had re-
sulted to the experimental subjects.

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Handloser is charged with participation in the sulfanilamide
experiments conducted by the defendant Gebhardt. These experi-
ments were conducted at Ravensbrueck concentration camp dur-
ing a period extending from 20 July 1942 to August 1943 upon
concentration camp inmates without their consent. While these
experiments were still in progress Gebhardt was invited to pre-
sent a report on his research findings at the Third Meeting of
the Consulting Physicians held on 18 and 19 May 1943, at the
Military Medical Academy in Berlin. Handloser was present at
that meeting; in fact, he had addressed the meeting prior to
Gebhardt's giving his report.

As stated elsewhere, Gebhardt made a frank and candid report
of what he had been doing at Ravensbrueck; honestly telling the
group that his experimental subjects were not volunteers but
were concentration camp inmates condemned to death, who had
been given the hope of reduction of sentence should they survive
the experiments. By means of charts to illustrate his lecture, he
made it clear that deaths had occurred among the human sub-
jects. When on the witness stand, the defendant Gebhardt testified
that prior to the meeting of consulting physicians he had dis-
cussed with either Schreiber or the defendant Rostock the sub-
ject matter of the lecture to be given, and that at that time
Schreiber had stated that he had received data concerning the
experiments through official channels.

201

At that time Schreiber was a direct subordinate of the de-
fendant Handloser, and we think it may be fairly assumed that
Schreiber’s knowledge was the knowledge of Handloser. However,
be that as it may, the evidence is clear that Handloser heard the
lecture by Gebhardt, as well as a subsequent lecture on the same
subject matter given by the defendant Fischer. There can be Ho
question, therefore, but that when Handloser came away from
the meeting he was fully informed of the fact that medical experi-
ments were being conducted in Ravensbrueck concentration camp
with inmates who were nonvolunteers. Moreover, he knew that
deaths had occurred among the experimental subjects.

After the meeting of consulting physicians had ended, Geb-
hardt returned to Ravensbrueck and conducted several more
series of sulfanilamide experiments. The subjects used for the
later experiments were Polish women who had been condemned
to Ravensbrueck without trial, and who did not give their con-
sent to act as experimental subjects. Three of these were killed
by the experiments.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Under counts two and three of the indictment Handloser is
charged with special responsibility for, and participation in,
typhus experiments conducted in the Buchenwald concentration
camp which were supervised by a certain Dr. Ding, and like ex-
periments conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp by a
certain Dr. Haagen. As shown elsewhere in the judgment, these
experiments were unlawful and resulted in deaths of non-German
nationals.

There can be no question but that in 1941 typhus was a poten-
tial menace to the German Army and to many German civilians.
The use of an adequate typhus vaccine was therefore a matter of
prime importance. The distribution of vaccines to the Wehrmacht
was within the control of Handloser. In the exercise of his func-
tions he was also interested in typhus vaccine production.

The Typhus and Virus Institutes of the OKH at Cracow
[Krakow] and Lemberg [Lvov] were engaged in the production
of the Weigl vaccine from the intestines of lice. This vaccine was
thought to be effective, but the production procedure was com-
plicated and expensive; hence, sufficient quantities of this vac-
cine could not be furnished. Another vaccine — the so-called Cox-
Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, produced from egg-yolk cultures —
could be quickly produced in large quantities, but its protective
qualities had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Evidence is before the Tribunal that the general problem was
discussed at a meeting held in Berlin, 29 December 1941, at-

202

tended by Dr. Bieber of the Ministry of Interior; Gildemeister ;
Dr. Scholz, a subordinate of Handloser; two physicians of the
“governing body of the Government General” ; and three repre-
sentatives of the Behring Works. It is stated in the minutes of
this conference that —

“The vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behr-
ing Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effective-
ness in an experiment.”

For the purpose above referred to, Dr. Demnitz of the Behring
Works would contact Dr. Mrugowsky. The minutes of the meet-
ing were prepared by Bieber, under date 4 January 1942.

A copy of the minutes of the meeting last referred to was
forwarded to the Army Medical Inspectorate at Berlin. It thus
appears that a representative of Handloser’s office, Scholz, at-
tended the meeting, and that a copy of the minutes was forwarded
to the Army Medical Inspectorate.

There is also evidence that on the same day a conference was
held between the defendant Handloser, Conti of the Ministry of
Interior, Reiter of the Health Department of the Reich, Gilde-
meister of the Robert Koch Institute, and the defendant Mrugow-
sky, at which time it was decided to establish a research station
at Buchenwald concentration camp to test the efficacy of the egg-
yolk, and other vaccines on concentration camp inmates. As a
result of the conference an experimental station was established
at Buchenwald under the direction of Dr. Ding, with the defend-
ant Hoven acting as his deputy.

Inasmuch as some of this information comes from Prosecution
Exhibit 287, referred to as the “Ding Diary”, a discussion of the
document is now appropriate.

Dr. Ding (who later changed his name to Schuler) was a very
ambitious man who was apparently willing to engage in any pro-
fessional activity which he thought might further his medical
career. He gladly seized upon the opportunity to conduct experi-
ments on concentration camp inmates in connection with the
vaccine study.

Every German officer holding a position comparable to that
held by Dr. Ding was required to keep a journal or diary showing
his official activities. It appears that Ding kept two diaries. Ding’s
personal diary containing official and personal entries and work
reports has disappeared; his official log or journal concerning
his work at Buchenwald is the document in evidence. This diary
was kept by one Eugen Kogon, an inmate at Buchenwald. He
made the actual entries and Ding verified and signed them.

Kogon, an Austrian subject, testified for the prosecution. We

841584 — 49—14

203

learn from his testimony that he was a former newspaper editor
and held other highly responsible positions. He was sent by the
German authorities to Buchenwald in 1939 as a political prisoner.
In April 1943 he was assigned to Ding as a clerk or assistant.
For many months prior to that time, however, he had been on
extremely friendly terms with Ding and as a consequence was
completely familiar with Ding’s operations. Indeed, so close was
the attachment that during the first half of the year 1942 Ding
had dictated the first portion of the diary which is in evidence,
and Kogon had transcribed it. After officially becoming Ding’s
assistant in 1943 all correspondence of every nature with which
Ding was concerned passed through the hands of Kogon.

The diary came into Kogon’s possession at the breaking up of
the camp, and remained in his possession, as he testified, until
he delivered it to the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes
at Nuernberg.

It is manifest that the entries in the diary were often not made
on the day they bear date; but this does not mean that it has no
probative value. Almost every entry in the diary is personally
signed by Ding. Time and again the entries in the diary have been
corroborated by other credible evidence. The defendants them-
selves who were familiar with operations at Buchenwald have
confirmed the entries in important essential particulars. We con-
sider the diary as constituting evidence of considerable probative
value, and shall give to the entries such consideration as under
all circumstances they are entitled to receive.

The first entry in the Ding diary, under date of 29 December
1941, reads as follows :

“Conference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspec-
tor], General Chief Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State
Secretary for the Department of Health of the Reich, SS Grup-
penfuehrer Dr. Conti ; President Professor Reiter of the Health
Department of the Reich; President Professor Gildemeister of
the Robert Koch Institute (Reich Institution to Combat Con-
tagious Diseases) and SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer
(Dozent) Dr. Mrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene, Waffen
SS, Berlin.

“It has been established that the need exists, to test the
efficiency of, and resistance of the human body to, the typhus
serum extracted from egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not
of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.”

This entry preceded by only a few days the actual commencement
of the experiments on concentration camp inmates to determine
the efficiency of the egg-yolk vaccine.

204

It seems certain that the foregoing entry in the Ding diary
was written or rewritten at some date later than that which it
bears, but the entry may be accepted as evidence of probative
value to the fact that it was agreed by some persons in authority
that experiments with vaccine prepared from egg yolks be made
on concentration camp inmates at Buchenwald. The next entry in
the diary bears date 2 January 1942, and reads as follows:

“The concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing
the typhus serums. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged
with these tests.”

Handloser testified that many conferences concerning typhus
vaccine took place and that he was interested in the testing of
chicken-egg vaccine “on a sufficient number of persons in a cer-
tain vicinity, that is, within an area where typhus had already
occurred or there was imminent danger existing.” He also testi-
fied that during the summer of 1941 he met Mrugowsky, who was
recommended to him by Schreiber, Handloser’s subordinate. He
also testified that he discussed the matter of the chicken-egg vac-
cines with Gildemeister and Conti. Handloser testified that he was
present at many conferences, both at the front and in rear eche-
lons, where such matters were discussed. Mrugowsky, in a letter
dated 5 May 1942, reported to Eyer (who was a subordinate of
Handloser) of the Typhus and Vaccine Institute of the High Com-
mand at Cracow [Krakow], describing the results of the first
series of experiments carried out in Buchenwald. The experi-
ments covered both the Weigl and egg-yolk vaccines. This report
called attention to the fact that two experimental subjects had
died.

An entry in the Ding diary dated 8 February 1943 states that
Dr. Eyer and Dr. Schmidt, a hygienist on the staff of the Medical
Inspectorate, visited the Typhus and Virus Institute at Buchen-
wald. Schmidt, a subordinate of Handloser from 1942 until
August 1944, stated that he and Eyer had visited Buchenwald. He
testified that his visit was concerned only with yellow fever vac-
cine tests which were being carried out at that station. This
statement by the witness is not convincing. From the Ding diary
it appears that infected lice were received by Ding prior to 30
November 1942. If this is correct, these lice could have come only
from an institute under control of the army over which Hand-
loser had jurisdiction.

Ding reported on his activities at the meeting of the Consult-
ing Surgeons of the Wehrmacht held in May 1943 in Berlin.
Handloser was present at that meeting but may not have heard
the report, the report having been made to the hygiene section,

205

which was presided over by Schreiber, Handloser’s subordinate.
Defendant Rose, having heard the report, openly objected to the
character of the experiments carried out at Buchenwald. Schrei-
ber, then, had full knowledge of the nature of the experiments
there carried on. Rose’s vigorous objection was doubtless a sub-
ject of general interest.

Handloser testified that on at least two occasions he discussed
with Mrugowsky matters connected with vaccines against ty-
phoid, typhus and other diseases. He stated that he was unable
to fix the dates of these conferences.

The entries in the Ding diary clearly indicate an effective liai-
son between the Army Medical Inspectorate and the experiments
which Ding was conducting at Buchenwald. There is also credible
evidence that the Inspectorate was informed of medical research
carried on by the Luftwaffe. The experiments at Buchenwald con-
tinued after Handloser had gained actual knowledge of the fact
that concentration camp inmates had been killed at Dachau as
the result of freezing; and that inmates at Ravensbrueck had
died as victims of the sulfanilamide experiments conducted by
Gebhardt and Fischer. Yet with this knowledge Handloser in his
superior medical position made no effort to investigate the situa-
tion of the human subjects or to exercise any proper degree of
control over those conducting experiments within his field of
authority and competence.

Had the slightest inquiry been made the facts would have re-
vealed that in vaccine experiments already conducted at Buchen-
wald, deaths had occurred — both as a result of artificial infections
by the lice which had been imported from the Typhus and Virus
Institute of the OKH at Cracow [Krakow] or Lemberg [Lvov],
or from infections by a virulent virus given to subjects after they
had first been vaccinated with either the Weigl, Cox-Haagen-
Gildemeister, or other vaccines, whose efficacy was being tested.
Had this step been taken, and had Handloser exercised his au-
thority, later deaths would have been prevented in these particu-
lar experiments which were originally set in motion through the
offices of the Medical Inspectorate and which were being con-
ducted for the benefit of the German armed forces.

These deaths not only occurred with German nationals, but also
among non-German nationals who had not consented to becoming
experimental subjects.

OTHER EXPERIMENTS

The defendant Handloser is also charged with special responsi-
bility for, and participation in, Malaria, Lost Gas, Bone, Muscle
and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water,

206

and Epidemic Jaundice Experiments. In our view the evidence is
insufficient to show any criminal connection of the defendant
Handloser with regard to these experiments.

The law of war imposes on a military officer in a position of
command an affirmative duty to take such steps as are within his
power and appropriate to the circumstances to control those
under his command for the prevention of acts which are viola-
tions of the law of war. The reason for the rule is plain and
understandable. As is pointed out in a decision rendered by the
Supreme Court of the United States, entitled Application of Yam-
ashita, 66 Supreme Court [Reporter] 340-347, 1946 —

“It is evident that the conduct of military operations by
troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts
of their commander would almost certainly result in violations
which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose
to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war from bru-
tality would largely be defeated if the commander of an invad-
ing army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable meas-
ures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes
that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the
operations of war by commanders who are to some extent
responsible for their subordinates.”

What has been said in this decision applies peculiarly to the
case of Handloser.

In connection with Handloser’s responsibility for unlawful ex-
periments upon human beings, the evidence is conclusive that
with knowledge of the frequent use of non-German nationals as
human experimental subjects, he failed to exercise any proper
degree of control over those subordinated to him who were im-
plicated in medical experiments coming within his official sphere
of competence. This was a duty which clearly devolved upon him
by virtue of his official position. Had he exercised his responsi-
bility, great numbers of non-German nationals would have been
saved from murder. To the extent that the crimes committed by
or under his authority were not war crimes they were crimes
against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Siegfried
Handloser guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

207

ROSTOCK

The defendant Rostock is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for, and participa-
tion in, Malaria, Lost (Mustard) Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone,
Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-
Water, Epidemic Jaundice, and Spotted Fever Experiments.

Rostock was a physician of recognized ability. From 1933 to

1941 he occupied successively the positions of senior surgeon of
the Surgical Clinic in Berlin, Professor of Surgery of the Uni-
versity of Berlin, and Deputy Director of the University Clinic.
In 1941 he was appointed Director of the Surgical Clinic, and in

1942 he became Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University
of Berlin. Prior to the war he had joined the NSDAP, and in
1939 he was assigned to military duty as a consulting surgeon.
In 1942 he was appointed consulting surgeon to the Army Medi-
cal Inspectorate and was subordinate to the Military Medical
Academy in Berlin. He attained the rank of brigadier general,
medical department (reserve). In 1943 he was appointed Chief
of the Office for Medical Science and Research, a department
under the supervision of defendant Karl Brandt, in which posi-
tion Rostock remained until the end of the war. From the time
he received the last-mentioned appointment, Rostock acted as
Brandt’s deputy on the Reich Research Council.

As Karl Brandt’s deputy Rostock was his agent in the field of
medical science and research — Rostock being charged with the
duty of coordinating and directing problems and activities con-
cerning the medical health service insofar as science and research
were concerned. Rostock was informed concerning medical re-
search conducted by the several branches of the Wehrmacht. As
head of the Office for Science and Research, he assigned research
problems and designated some as “urgent”. It was his duty to
avoid duplication of work in scientific research and to decide
whether or not a suggested problem was worthy of a research
assignment. It is clear that Rostock and Karl Brandt were in-
timate friends of years standing.

The prosecution does not contend that Rostock personally par-
ticipated in criminal experiments. It vigorously argues, however,
that — with full knowledge that concentration camp inmates were
being experimented upon — he continued to function upon re-
search assignments concerning scientific investigations, the result
of which would probably further experiments upon human be-
ings. The prosecution then argues that his knowledge concerning
these matters, considered together with the position of authority
which he occupied in connection with scientific research and the

208

fact that he failed to exercise his authority in an attempt to
stop or check criminal experiments, renders him guilty as
charged.

In this connection the prosecution relies upon its Exhibit 457,
a document which bears date at Berlin, 14 September 1944. It is
headed, “Commissioner for Medical and Health Matters/’ fol-
lowed by “The Delegate for Science and Research.” Below ap-
pears :

“List of medical institutes working on problems of research
which were designated as urgent by the discussion on research
on 26 August 1944 in Beelitz.

“(Summary according to the 650 orders for research sub-
mitted to us.)”

The document then contains a list of research assignments num-
bered “1” to “45.” Numbers 42 and 44 read as follows:

“Strasbourg

“42. Hygiene Institute (Haagen) virus research

“44. Anatomical Institute (Hirt) Chemical warfare agents.”

The document bears Rostock’s signature. Five of the problems
concern hepatitis research, and three, virus research.

It appears from the evidence that Rostock’s duties included the
avoidance of duplication in the distribution of assignments for
medical research. If the head of the medical department of a
branch of the Wehrmacht assigned to some particular physician
or institute a particular scientific or medical problem, a copy of
the assignment would be forwarded to Rostock, who would then
coordinate the matter by ascertaining whether or not that assign-
ment was being worked on by some other agency or whether it
would lead to worthwhile results. Who classified as “urgent” the
45 of the 650 orders for research does not appear; but it may
be assumed that Rostock approved that classification.

Doubtless Rostock knew that experiments on concentration
camp inmates were being conducted. He presided over the meet-
ing of surgeons held in May 1943, and there heard statements
that experimental subjects had been artificially infected. Doubt-
less he knew that the experiments were dangerous and that
further experiments would probably be conducted. However, it
does not appear that either Rostock or any subordinate of his
directed the work done on any assignment concerning criminal
experiments. Certain of these experiments were classified as

209

“urgent” at a “discussion on research” as above set forth. Noth-
ing in the designation of any such assignment as appears in
Prosecution Exhibit 457 contains on its face anything more than
a matter of proper scientific investigation.

The record does not show that the position held by Rostock
vested in him any authority whatsoever other than as above
stated. No experiments were conducted by any person or organ-
ization which was to the least extent under Rostock’s control or
direction.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Paul
Rostock is not guilty as charged under the indictment, and directs
that he be released from custody under the indictment when this
Tribunal presently adjourns.

SCHROEDER

The defendant Schroeder is charged under counts two and
three of the indictment with special responsibility for, and par-
ticipation in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Sea-Water,
Epidemic Jaundice, Typhus and other vaccines, and Gas Experi-
ments. The prosecution has abandoned the charge that he par-
ticipated in the sulfanilamide experiments and hence that subject
will not be considered further.

The defendant served as a medical officer with the infantry
during the First World War. In the period prior to 1931 he was
attached as medical officer to a number of military units. On 1
January 1931 he was transferred to the Army Medical Inspec-
torate as a consultant (Referent) on hospital matters and thera-
peutics with the rank of Oberstabsarzt (major). In 1935 Schroe-
der became chief of staff to Generalarzt Hippke in the newly
established Medical Department of the Reich Ministry for Avia-
tion. He retained this position after Hippke was made Inspector
of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe in 1937. In February 1940
Schroeder was appointed air fleet physician for Air Fleet II with
the rank of Generalstabsarzt (major general). On 1 January 1944
he replaced Hippke as Chief of the Medical Service of the Luft-
waffe. Simultaneously he was promoted to Generaloberstabsarzt
(lieutenant general), which was the highest rank obtainable in
the medical services. As Chief of the Medical Service of the Luft-
waffe, all medical officers of the German Air Force were sub-
ordinated directly or indirectly to Schroeder. After he became
Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe his immediate
superior was Handloser, who was Chief of the Medical Service of
the Wehrmacht.

210

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were performed at Dachau concentration
camp for the benefit of the Luftwaffe during the year 1942. De-
tails of the experiments are discussed in other portions of this
judgment.

During the period from 1941 to the end of 1943 the defendant
Schroeder, in his position as air fleet physician of Air Fleet II,
was in the operational zone of Air Fleet II, which comprised the
Mediterranean area. He did not become Chief of the Medical
Service of the Luftwaffe until 1 January 1944. There is no evi-
dence that while air fleet physician he exercised or could have
exercised any control over experiments then being conducted for
the benefit of the Luftwaffe.

EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

Schreiber, a member of Handloser’s staff, who presided over a
conference held in Breslau in June 1944 for the purpose of co-
ordinating jaundice research, assigned groups of physicians to
work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, and
Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. On 27 June 1944
Haagen, a Luftwaffe officer, wrote his collaborator Kalk, a con-
sultant to Schroeder, asking, “Could you in your official position
take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental sub-
jects?”

The record shows that Haagen subsequently conducted epi-
demic jaundice experiments on prisoners at Natzweiler concen-
tration camp. There is no evidence, however, to establish Schroe-
der’s criminal connection with these experiments. At most, all
that can be said for this evidence is that Schroeder may have
gained knowledge of the experiments through Kalk, a member of
his staff — but even that fact has not been made plain.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

Freezing experiments were carried out at Dachau concentra-
tion camp for the benefit of the Luftwaffe, during the year 1942.
Details of these experiments are discussed elsewhere in this judg-
ment.

It is conclusively shown from the evidence dealing with freez-
ing that as early as the year 1943 Schroeder had actual knowledge
that such experiments had been conducted upon inmates at
Dachau concentration camp, during the course of which suffering
and deaths had resulted to the experimental subjects.

211

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Experiments in connection with typhus were conducted at
Schirmeck and Natzweiler concentration camps during the years
1942, 1943, and 1944. The details of these experiments are dis-
cussed elsewhere in this judgment.

The experiments were carried out by a Luftwaffe medical
officer, Professor Dr. Haagen. As a medical officer of the Luft-
waffe he was subject to Schroeder’s orders after the latter be-
came Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. The office of
Schroeder issued and approved the research assignments pur-
suant to which these experiments were carried out. It provided
the funds for the research. One of the chief collaborators in the
program was the defendant Rose, consultant to the Chief of the
Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

Correspondence was carried on between Haagen and the Chief
of Staff for the defendant Schroeder with reference to whether a
typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler was connected in any
manner with the vaccine research then being conducted. The
office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe re-
ceived reports on the experiments from which it could be clearly
perceived that typhus vaccine experiments were being performed
on concentration camp inmates.

While the experiments were in progress, Schroeder admits
having visited Haagen at Strasbourg, but denies that he talked
with Haagen about the experiments. The defendant’s assertion
that the experiments were not discussed does not carry con-
viction.

As has been pointed out in this judgment, the law of war im-
poses on a military officer in a position of command an affirmative
duty to take such steps as are within his power and appropriate
to the circumstances to control those under his command for the
prevention of acts which are violations of the law of war.

This rule is applicable to the case of Schroeder. At the time
he became Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Schroe-
der knew of the fact that freezing experiments for the benefit of
the Luftwaffe had been carried out at Dachau concentration camp
by Luftwaffe medical officers. He knew that through these experi-
ments injury and death had resulted to the experimental sub-
jects. He also knew that during the years 1942 and 1943, typhus
vaccine research had been carried out by the Luftwaffe officer,
Haagen, for the benefit of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, at Natz-
weiler and Schirmeck concentration camps — and had he taken the
trouble to inquire, he could have known that deaths had occurred
as a result of these experiments.

212

With all this knowledge, or means of knowledge, before him
as commanding officer, he blindly approved a continuation of
typhus research by Haagen, supported the program, and was
furnished reports of its progress, without so much as taking one
step to determine the circumstances under which the research
had been or was being carried on, to lay down rules for the
conduct of present or future research by his subordinates, or to
prescribe the conditions under which the concentration camp in-
mates could be used as experimental subjects.

As was the case with reference to the freezing experiments at
Dachau, non-German nationals were used as experimental sub-
jects, none gave their consent, and many suffered injury and
death as a result of the experiments.

GAS EXPERIMENTS

Experiments with various types of poison gas were performed
by Luftwaffe Officer Haagen and a Professor Dr. Hirt in the
Natzweiler concentration camp. They began in November 1942
and were conducted through the summer of 1944. During this
period a great many concentration camp inmates of Russian,
Polish, and Czech nationality were experimented on with gas,
at least 50 of whom died. A certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff
physician of the Luftwaffe worked with Hirt on the gas experi-
ments throughout the period.

We discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding officer
to take appropriate measures to control his subordinates, in deal-
ing with the case of Handloser. We shall not repeat what we said
there. Had Schroeder adopted the measures which the law of war
imposes upon one in position of command to prevent the actions
of his subordinates amounting to violations of the law of war,
the deaths of the non-German nationals involved in the gas ex-
periments might well have been prevented.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

Sea-water experiments were conducted on inmates of Dachau
concentration camp during the late spring and summer of 1944.
The defendant Schroeder openly admits that these experiments
were conducted by his authority. When on the witness stand he
related the circumstances under which these experiments were
initiated and carried through to completion.

As related by Schroeder the experiment on making sea water
drinkable was a problem of great importance. Two methods were
available in Germany, each of which to some extent had been
previously tried, both on animal and on human subjects. These

213

were known as the Schaefer and the Berkatit processes. Use of
the Schaefer method on sea water produced a satisfactory liquid
essentially the same in its effects and potable qualities as ordinary
pure drinking water. The Schaefer process, however, called for
quantities of silver, which were thought to be unavailable. Use
of the Berka process, however, resulted merely in changing the
taste of sea water, thus making it more palatable, without at the
same time doing away with danger to health and life which al-
ways results from consuming considerable quantities of untreated
sea water. Materials were available for the Berka process, but
Schroeder did not feel that it could be adopted until more was
known of the method. At Schroeder’s direction, the defendant
Becker-Freyseng arranged for a conference to be held at the
German Air Ministry in May 1944 to discuss the problem. Present
at the conference, among others, were Berka and the defendants
Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer.

There is no doubt that the conference was well informed, and
discussed all current data upon the subject. Such fact appears
from the minutes of the meeting, in which it is stated:

“* * * Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the
clinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von
Sirany, and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider
them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final
decision. The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if
the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected
not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will
result in permanent injuries to health and — according to the
opinion of N.C.O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer — will finally result in
death after not later than 12 days. External symptoms are to
be expected such as dehydration, diarrhea, convulsions, hallu-
cinations, and finally death.”

It was concluded at this meeting that it would be necessary to
perform further sea- water experiments upon human beings in
order to determine definitely whether or not the Berkatit method
of treating sea water could be safely employed and used in con-
nection with the German war effort. These experiments were
planned to be carried on in group series, each of which would re-
quire six days, and would be made upon human beings in this
order: one group would be supplied only with Berkatit-treated
sea water; a second group would receive only ordinary drinking
water; a third group would receive no water of any kind; the
fourth group was to be given such water as was generally pro-
vided in emergency sea-distress kits, then used by German mili-
tary personnel.

214

In addition to the first experiment it was agreed that a second
experiment should be conducted. The notes of the meeting which
deal with the second experimental series read as follows :

“Persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as
diet also the emergency sea rations.

“Duration of experiments — 12 days.

“Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service,
permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experi-
mental subjects, has to be expected, as experimental subjects
such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by
the Reichsfuehrer SS.”

On 7 June 1944 Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz
asking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in
the sea-water experiments, which letter reads in part as follows :

“Highly Respected Reich Minister :

“Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to
settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human
beings. Today again, I stand before a decision which, after
numerous experiments on animals as well as human experi-
ments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solu-
tion. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods
for making sea water potable. The one method, developed by
a medical officer, removes the salt from the sea water and trans-
forms it into real drinking water; the second method, sug-
gested by an engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and
only removes the unpleasant taste from the sea water. The
latter method in contrast to the first, requires no critical raw
material. From the medical point of view this method must be
viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt
solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.

“As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be
carried out for a period of four days, and as practical demands
require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12
days, appropriate experiments are necessary.

“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available
for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments
that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp
Dachau, this camp would be very suitable * * *”

Various other parties took part in correspondence upon this
application, one of the writers suggesting that Jews or persons
held in quarantine be used as experimental subjects. Another cor-
respondent nominated asocial gypsy half-breeds as candidates for

215

the treatment. Herr Himmler decided that gypsies, plus three
others for control purposes, should be utilized.

In fairness to the defendant it should be stated that he con-
tests the translation of the second sentence in the first paragraph
of the letter written by him to Himmler, which the prosecution
interprets as meaning that experiments could no longer be con-
ducted on voluntary subjects, and that the words “demands a final
solution” meant that involuntary subjects in concentration camps
should be employed. Regardless of whether or not the letter
quoted by us is a correct translation of the German original, the
evidence shows that within a month after the letter was sent to
Himmler through Grawitz, sea-water experiments were com-
menced at Dachau by the defendant Beiglboeck.

The method by which the experimental subjects were chosen
is not known to the defendant Schroeder. As he explained from
the witness stand with reference to his letter and the subsequent
procedure, “I sent it away only after I had consulted [about] the
possibility of the experiment with Grawitz, and after I had in-
formed him how the whole thing was thought [of] by us, so that
he could pass on this information to Himmler in case it became
necessary. Then this letter was sent off, and after possibly four
weeks when Beiglboeck had arrived at Dachau — in the meantime,
he was given an opportunity to carry out this work. Whatever
lay in between that, how in the administrative way this was
organized, we never learned * * * it was an inter-office affair
* * *. We only saw the initial point and the end point of this
route.”

Thus began another experiment conducted under the auspices
of the defendant Schroeder, wherein the initiator of the experi-
ment failed to exercise the personal duty of determining that
only consenting human subjects would be used, but left that re-
sponsibility to others. Again is demonstrated the case of an officer
in a position of superior command who authorizes the perform-
ance of experiments by his subordinates while failing to take
efforts to prescribe the conditions which will insure the conduct
of the experiments within legally permissible limits.

The evidence shows conclusively that gypsies of various na-
tionalities were used as experimental subjects. Former inmates
of Auschwitz concentration camp were tricked into coming to
Dachau with the promise that they were to be used as members
of a labor battalion. When they arrived at Dachau they were
assigned to the sea-water experimental station without their
consent. During the course of the experiment many of them suf-
fered intense physical and mental anguish.

The Tribunal finds that the defendant Schroeder was respon-

216

sible for, aided and abetted, and took a consenting part in, medi-
cal experiments performed on non-German nationals against their
consent; in the course of which experiments deaths, brutalities,
cruelties, tortures, and other inhuman acts were committed on
the experimental subjects. To the extent that these experiments
did not constitute war crimes they constitute crimes against hu-
manity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Oskar
Schroeder guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

GENZKEN

The defendant Genzken is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for, and participa-
tion in, Sulfanilamide, Spotted Fever, Poison, and Incendiary
Bomb Experiments. The prosecution has abandoned the two latter
charges and hence they will not be considered further. The de-
fendant is also charged under count four of the indictment with
membership, after 1 September 1939, in an organization declared
criminal by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal
— namely, the SS.

Genzken was commissioned in the Medical Service of the Ger-
man Navy in 1912 and served through the First World War in
that capacity. From 1919 to 1934, he engaged in the private prac-
tice of medicine. He joined the NSDAP in 1926, and in October
1934 he was again commissioned as a reserve officer of the naval
medical department. On 1 March 1936 he was transferred to the
medical department of the SS, with the rank of major, and as-
signed to the medical department of a branch of the SS, which in
the summer of 1940 became the Waffen SS. He served as chief
surgeon of the SS hospital in Berlin, and was director of the de-
partment charged with supplying medical equipment and with the
supervision of medical personnel in concentration camps. He was
also medical supervisor to Eicke, the head of all the concentration
camps, which were within Genzken’s jurisdiction insofar as medi-
cal matters were concerned. In May 1940, Genzken was appointed
Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS with the rank of
senior colonel, Grawitz being his medical superior. He retained
this position until the close of the war. In 1942 he was designated
as Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, Division D of
the SS Operational Headquarters. On 30 January 1943 he was
appointed Gruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant in the Waffen SS.

217

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

The sulfanilamide experiments referred to in the indictment
were conducted by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Ober-
heuser at Ravensbrueck concentration camp between 20 July 1942
and August 1943. During this period of time, four of the medical
branches of the Waffen SS were under Genzken, including Office
XVI, Hygiene, of which the defendant Mrugowsky was chief.

It is submitted by the prosecution that the evidence proves
Mrugowsky to have given support and assistance to these experi-
ments, and that, consequently, Genzken becomes criminally liable
because of the position of command he held over Mrugowsky. It
is also urged that because Genzken attended the meeting in Berlin
at which Gebhardt and Fischer gave their lecture on the experi-
ments, this likewise shows criminal connection.

That Mrugowsky rendered assistance to Gebhardt in the sulfa-
nilamide experiments at Ravensbrueck is clearly proved. Mru-
gowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at Gebhardt’s disposal.
He furnished the bacterial cultures for the infections. He con-
ferred with Gebhardt about the medical problems involved. It was
on the suggestion of Mrugowsky’s office that wood shavings and
ground glass were placed in artificially inflicted wounds made on
the subjects so that battlefield wounds would be more closely simu-
lated. It also appears that Blumenreuter, who was the chief of
Office XV under Genzken’s direction, may have furthered the ex-
periments by furnishing surgical instruments and medicines to
Gebhardt.

The Tribunal finds that Genzken was not present at the Berlin
meeting.

Although Mrugowsky and Blumenreuter may have aided Geb-
hardt in his experiments, the prosecution has failed to show that
it was done with Genzken’s direction or knowledge.

The prosecution, therefore, has failed to sustain the burden
with regard to this particular specification.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

The series of experiments which are the subject of this speci-
fication were conducted at Buchenwald concentration camp and
began in January 1942. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding, who was
attached to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, was in charge
of these experiments — with the defendant Hoven serving as his
deputy.

Until 1 September 1943 both Mrugowsky, the Chief of the
Hygiene Institute, and Ding, were subordinate to Genzken. Until

218

the date last mentioned the chain of military command in the
field of hygiene and research was as follows: Himmler-Grawitz-
Genzken-Mr ugo wsky-D ing.

Prior to 1939 Ding had been camp physician at Buchenwald,
and as such was subordinate to Genzken. During the early months
of the war Genzken served as an army surgeon in the field,
Ding being his adjutant. During the fall of 1941 Ding returned
to Buchenwald and Genzken to his office at Berlin. During their
service in the field Genzken and Ding had become warm personal
friends. Ding was attached to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen
SS and was engaged in typhus research for the Institute. Genzken
testified that Mrugowsky and the Hygiene Institute were in his
chain of command prior to 31 August 1943. He further testified
that after the date last mentioned his office had nothing to do with
Ding save to provide money for Ding’s expenses, there being no
other budget from which money was available. Mrugowsky testi-
fied that Genzken was his superior officer until 1 September 1943,
and knew that the Hygiene Institute was working on the problem
of providing an efficient vaccine against typhus. It is admitted
that Ding was carrying out medical experiments on concentration
camp inmates in order to determine the effect of various typhus
vaccines.

It is not contended that such experiments were not carried out.
In the course of these experiments two buildings or “blocks” were
used. The experiments were conducted in Block 46, and when
satisfactory vaccine was decided upon, Block 50 was used for the
preparation of vaccines.

During the course of the experiments with vaccines in March
1942, Ding himself contracted typhus. Genzken testified that he
was aware of the fact that concentration camp inmates were sub-
jected to experiments, but stated that he was not advised as to the
method of experimentation.

It is clear that the experiments necessary to decide upon a
satisfactory vaccine preceded by a considerable period the pro-
duction of the vaccine. Genzken testified that vaccine production
began in December 1943, that the production establishment only
moved into Block 50 in the middle of August, and that when pro-
duction actually began “this establishment had already come
under the agency of Grawitz and it was not subordinated any
more” to him.

Under date of 9 January 1943 the Ding diary contains a lengthy
entry stating that by Genzken’s order the typhus research station
became the “Department of Typhus and Virus Research,” that
Dr. Ding would be head of this department, and that during his
absence defendant Hoven would act in his place. The entry further

841584 — 49—15

219

stated that Ding was appointed chief department head for special
missions in hygiene, etc. The Ding diary is discussed elsewhere
in this judgment. Considering the demonstrated desire of Ding
for his personal aggrandizement, this entry is not entitled to en-
tire credit, as written. It refers to Genzken as “Major General” —
which rank he did not receive until a few weeks after 9 January
1943. The entry, however, has some probative value upon the ques-
tion of Ding’s status during the year 1943.

Genzken testified that he “approved” the establishment of Ding’s
department for vaccine research. He also testified that his depart-
ment furnished necessary funds from its budget for Ding’s in-
vestigations.

From the evidence it appears that prior to 1 September 1943,
Mrugowsky reported regularly to Genzken, on an average of once
per week, either orally or in writing.

Under date 5 May 1942, Mrugowsky signed a written report
upon the subject, “Testing Typhus Vaccines.” This report went
to six different offices: the first copy, to Conti; the second copy,
to Grawitz; and the third copy, to Genzken. The report com-
mences : “The tests of four typhus vaccines made by us on human
subjects at the instigation of the Reich Health Leader Dr. Conti
had the following results * * It is stated that the mortality
of victims of typhus during an epidemic “was around 30 percent”
and that “during the same epidemic four groups of experimental
subjects were vaccinated with one each” of the four types of vac-
cine described in the beginning of the report.

“The experimental subjects were mostly in their twenties and
thirties. Care was taken when selecting them that they did not
come from typhus districts and also to ensure an interval of four
to six weeks between the protective vaccination and the outbreak
of the clinical symptoms of the disease. According to experience
this period is imperative to achieve immunity.”

The effects of the four vaccines tested were described as follows.
The report on the Weigl vaccine states that “nobody died”. The
report on the Gildemeister and Haagen vaccine also states that
no deaths occurred. The report on the Behring-Normal vaccine
states that one person died. The experiment with the Behring-
Strong vaccine reports one death.

The last paragraph of the report states : “In the last two groups
the symptoms were considerably stronger than in the first groups
* * *. No difference between the two vaccines of the Behring
Works was observed. The attending physicians stated that the
general picture of the disease in group four was rather more
severe compared with that of the patients of group three.”

In a summation, Mrugowsky recommended the use of a vaccine

220

“produced according to the chicken egg process, which, in its
immunization effect, is equal to the vaccine after Weigh”

“The effectiveness of protection depends on the method used in
making the vaccine.”

Of course, experiments with vaccines, conducted because of the
urgent need for the discovery of a protective vaccine, would lead
to scant results unless the subjects vaccinated were subsequently
in some manner effectively exposed to typhus, thereby demonstrat-
ing the effectiveness or noneffectiveness of the vaccination. While
Mrugowsky’s report, above referred to, makes no reference to an
artificial infection, it does state without further explanation that
two deaths occurred, and in the last paragraph, quoted above,
compares the severity of “the diseased” between groups three and
four.

On cross-examination Mrugowsky testified that Dr. Ding was
to lecture at a meeting of consulting surgeons in the spring of
1943, and that the witness informed Genzken concerning “the in-
tended amount of vaccines to be produced by the SS.” Mrugowsky
testified that he gave Genzken this information for three reasons :
first, that Genzken had to be advised of the fact that Ding, as a
member of the Waffen SS, was to give a lecture to the surgeons ;
second, that Genzken should be informed concerning “the effective-
ness of a number of vaccines to be used for troops” ; third, that
Genzken should know when he could expect the first production
of vaccines for the SS and the amounts he could count on for each
month. Mrugowsky further testified:

“The conference with Dr. Genzken was extremely brief. As
far as I remember we were standing close to his desk. I told
him that the various vaccines which I mentioned to him had a
different effect; I told him that the effect varied as to the
length of the temperature and a reduction of fatalities ; and I
told him that after having vaccinated the entire SS we could
count on some protective effect for all soldiers. On that occasion
I showed him a few charts which Ding had handed over to me
at that time, the same charts which Ding reproduced in his
paper, and I used these charts in order to explain the effective-
ness of the vaccines to him.

Q. “The mortality figures and the temperature figures could
be derived from these charts, couldn’t they?

A. “Yes. If I remember correctly, on the heading of these
charts the information was given what the day of the infection
was. This entire conference was very brief and it is quite pos-
sible that Dr. Genzken — who was only concerned with the most
important points which he had to know — it is quite possible that

221

he overlooked that. I had no cause to point it out to him in
particular since I was not reporting to him about Ding’s series
of experiments but was only reporting to him about the protec-
tive value of various vaccines which he, as medical chief, had
to know. These were two completely different points of view.”

The Tribunal is convinced that prior to 1 September 1943,
Genzken knew the nature and scope of the activities of his sub-
ordinates, Mrugowsky and Ding, in the field of typhus research;
yet he did nothing to insure that such research would be conducted
within permissible legal limits. He knew that concentration camp
inmates were being subjected to cruel medical experiments in the
course of which deaths were occurring; yet he took no steps to
ascertain the status of the subjects or the circumstances under
which they were being sent to the experimental block. Had he
made the slightest inquiry he would have discovered that many of
the human subjects used were non-German nationals who had not
given their consent to the experiments.

As the Tribunal has already pointed out in this judgment, “the
duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent
rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in
the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may
not be delegated to another with impunity.”

We find that Genzken, in his official capacity, was responsible
for, aided and abetted the typhus experiments, performed on non-
German nationals against their consent, in the course of which
deaths occurred as a result of the treatment received. To the ex-
tent that these experiments did not constitute war crimes they
constituted crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Genzken is charged with
being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.
The evidence shows that Genzken became a member of the SS
on 1 March 1936 and voluntarily remained in that organization
until the end of the war. As a high-ranking member of the Medi-
cal Service of the Waffen SS he was criminally implicated in the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as
charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl
Genzken guilty, under counts two, three, and four of the indict-
ment.

222

GEBHARDT

The defendant Gebhardt is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for, and participation
in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sulfanilamide,
Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation,
Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, Sterilization, Typhus, Poison, and
Incendiary Bomb Experiments.

The defendant Gebhardt held positions of great power and re-
sponsibility in the Medical Service of the SS in Nazi Germany.
He joined the NSDAP in 1933 and the SS at least as early as
1935. He took part in the Nazi Putsch of 1923, which aimed at the
overthrow of the so-called Weimar Republic, the democratic gov-
ernment of Germany, being then a member of the illegal Free
Corps, “Bund Oberland.” When, in 1933, the hospital at Hohenly-
chen was founded, Gebhardt was appointed chief physician of this
institution. In 1938 he became the attending physician to Himmler.
He was also personal physician to Himmler and his family. In
1940 Gebhart was appointed consulting surgeon of the Waffen SS
and, in 1943, chief clinical officer (Oberster Kliniker) of the Reich
Physician SS and Police, Grawitz. In the Allgemeine SS Geb-
hardt attained the rank of a Gruppenfuehrer (major general),
and in the Waffen SS the rank of major general in the reserve.

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

The purpose for which these experiments were undertaken is
defined in counts two and three of the indictment.

In the Ravensbrueck concentration camp during a period from
20 July 1942 until August 1943, the defendant Gebhardt, aided
by defendants Fischer and Oberheuser, performed such experi-
ments upon human subjects without their consent. Gebhardt per-
sonally requested Heinrich Himmler’s permission to carry out
these experiments, and attempts to assume full responsibility for
them and for any consequences resulting therefrom. He himself
personally carried out the initial operations.

While it is not deemed strictly necessary in this judgment to
describe in any detail the procedure followed in performing these
experiments, a brief statement will now be made thereon. The
first experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration
camp inmates used during preliminary experiments in July 1942,
but later 60 Polish women, who were experimented on in 5 groups
of 12 subjects each.

In the first series of experiments the healthy subjects were in-
fected with various bacteria, but resulting infections were not
thereafter considered sufficiently serious to furnish an answer to

223

the problem sought to be solved and further experiments were
then undertaken.

Dr. Gebhardt has admitted that in the second series of experi-
ments three of the subjects died as a result of the treatment re-
ceived. All of these subjects were persons who had been selected
by the concentration camp authorities and who were not consulted
as to their consent or willingness to participate. Notwithstanding
this, however, the experimental subjects protested against experi-
ments both orally and in writing, stating that they would have
preferred death to continued experiments, since they were con-
vinced that they would die in any event.

An examination of the evidence presented to this Tribunal in
connection with sulfanilamide experiments performed upon un-
willing and nonconsenting concentration camp inmates indicates
conclusively, that participating human subjects were used under
duress and coercion in experiments performed upon their bodies ;
that persons acting as subjects incurred and suffered physical
torture and the risk of death; that in the experiments here dis-
cussed at least five deaths of subjects were caused therefrom.

It is claimed by Dr. Gebhardt that all of the non-German ex-
perimental subjects were selected from inmates of concentration
camps, former members of the Polish Resistance Movement, who
had previously been condemned to death and were in any event
marked for legal execution. This is not recognized as a valid
defense to the charge of the indictment.

The Polish women who were used in the experiments had not
given their consent to become experimental subjects. That fact
was known to Gebhardt. The evidence conclusively shows that
they had been confined at Ravensbrueck without so much as a
semblance of trial. That fact could have been known to Gebhardt
had he made the slightest inquiry of them concerning their status.
Moreover, assuming for the moment that they had been condemned
to death for acts considered hostile to the German forces in the
occupied territory of Poland, these persons still were entitled to
the protection of the laws of civilized nations. While under
certain specific conditions the rules of land warfare may recog-
nize the validity of an execution of spies, war rebels, or other
resistance workers, it does not under any circumstances counte-
nance the infliction of death or other punishment by maiming or
torture.

BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE
TRANSPLANTATION EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were carried out in Ravensbrueck concen-
tration camp during the same time, and on the same group of

224

Polish women used in the sulfanilamide experiments. Upon these
Polish inmates three kinds of bone operations were performed —
artificially induced fractures, bone transplantations, bone splints
— the conditions of the operations being specially created in each
particular case. Some girls were required to submit to operations
several times. In one instance small pieces of fibula were taken
out; in another instance the periosteum of the leg was removed.
Cases occurred where subjects were experimented on by deliber-
ately fracturing their limbs in several places and testing the effect
of certain treatments. In at least one case bone incisions were
performed on a subject six different times. In another case the
shoulder blade of a subject was removed.

Further recital of these activities is as unnecessary as were
the operations themselves. The testimony heard and exhibits
filed and examined by the Tribunal conclusively sustain the alle-
gations of the indictment with reference to the experiments men-
tioned therein.

SEPSIS (PHLEGMON) EXPERIMENTS

A witness whose testimony must be accepted as credible tes-
tified concerning these experiments in which concentration camp
inmates were used without their consent and were thereafter
infected with pus. He testified as to at least two series of experi-
ments which resulted fatally for 12 of the subjects.

The prosecution claims, and it is likely that these biochemical
experiments which were performed in the Dachau concentration
camp were complementary to and formed parts of the sulfanila-
mide experiments in Ravensbrueck. The evidence, however, is not
sufficient to establish the criminal connection of Gebhardt with
these experiments.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

Dr. Gebhardt’s position, which has been mentioned in this
judgment as that of an official and personal associate of Heinrich
Himmler — part of whose duties concerned concentration camp
medical experiments, was partially defined by an order issued by
Himmler 15 May 1944 directing that an opinion from Gebhardt
would be required before any experiments thereafter could be
carried out on such human subjects. This order stated that all
medical experiments to be carried out at the concentration camps
had to have Himmler’s personal approval. It appears, however,
that while the application for permission to carry out experi-
ments involving human subjects was required to be obtained from
Himmler — yet before such application could be examined, a crit-

225

ical opinion of the chief clinical officer of the SS, Dr. Gebhardt,
concerning its technical aspects was required to accompany it.
Complying with this order Gebhardt, in reference to sea-water
experiments, wrote —

“I deem it absolutely right to support the Luftwaffe in every
way and to place a general physician of the Waffen SS at dis-
posal to supervise the experiments. ,,

This alone is deemed to be sufficient to show that Dr. Gebhardt
knew about, and approved, the performance of the sea-water
experiments as charged in the indictment.

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

Details of the sterilization experiments will be dealt with else-
where in this judgment; and it is unnecessary to repeat them
here, except to the extent necessary to inquire the part, if any,
taken by Gebhardt therein.

On 7 and 8 July 1942 a conference took place between Himmler,
Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS Brigadefuehrer
Clauberg, to discuss the sterilization of Jewesses. Dr. Clauberg
was promised that the Auschwitz concentration camp would be
placed at his disposal for experiments on human beings and an-
imals, and he was requested to discover by means of fundamental
experiments a method of sterilizing persons without their knowl-
edge. During the course of the conference, Himmler called the
special attention of all present “to the fact that the matter in-
volved was most secret and should be discussed only with the
officers in charge and that the persons present at the experiments
or discussions had to pledge secrecy.”

From this evidence it is apparent that Gebhardt was present
at the initial meeting which launched at least one phase of the
sterilization program in the concentration camps, and thus had
knowledge and gave at least passive approval to the program.

HIGH-ALTITUDE, FREEZING, MALARIA, LOST GAS, EPIDEMIC
JAUNDICE, TYPHUS, POISON, AND INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS

Details as to the origin of and procedure followed in these
experiments are discussed elsewhere in this judgment, and will
not be repeated. Our only concern is to determine to what extent,
if any, the defendant Gebhardt took part in the experiments.

In these enterprises the defendant seems not to have taken
any active part, as he did in the sulfanilamide experiments and
in other programs. It may be argued that his close connection
with Heinrich Himmler creates a presumption that these experi-
ments were conducted with Gebhardt’s knowledge and approval.

226

Be that as it may, no sufficient evidence to that effect has been
presented, and a mere presumption is not enough in this case
to convict the defendant.

Attention has been given to the brief filed by counsel for the
defendant Gebhardt. For the most part it is unnecessary to dis-
cuss the theories presented in this brief, for the reason that the
main reliance of the defense seems to be that in his connection
with the experiments charged in the indictment, Dr. Gebhardt
acted as a soldier in the execution of orders from an authorized
superior. We cannot see the applicability of the doctrine of su-
perior orders as a defense to the charges contained in the indict-
ment. Such doctrine has never been held applicable to a case where
the one to whom the order is given has free latitude of decision
whether to accept the order or reject it. Such was the situation
with reference to Gebhardt. The record makes it manifestly plain
that he was not ordered to perform the experiments, but that he
sought the opportunity to do so. Particularly is this true with
reference to the sulfanilamide experiments: Gebhardt, in effect,
took them away from Grawitz to demonstrate that certain sur-
gical procedures advocated by him at the bedside of the mortally
wounded Heydrich at Prague in May of 1942 were scientifically
and surgically superior to the methods of treatment proposed by
Dr. Morell, Hitler’s personal physician. The doctrine, therefore, is
not applicable. But even if it were, the fact of such orders could
merely be considered, under Control Council Law No. 10, as
palliating punishment.

Another argument presented in briefs of counsel attempts to
ground itself upon the debatable proposition that in the broad
interest of alleviating human suffering, a state may legally pro-
vide for medical experiments to be carried out on prisoners con-
demned to death without their consent, even though such experi-
ments may involve great suffering or death for the experimental
subject. Whatever may be the right of a state with reference
to its own citizens, it is certain that such legislation may not be
extended so as to permit the practice upon nationals of other
countries who, held in the most abject servitude, are subjected
to experiments without their consent and under the most brutal
and senseless conditions.

We find that Gebhardt, in his official capacity, was responsible
for, aided and abetted, and took a consenting part in medical
experiments performed on non-German nationals against their
consent; in the course of which deaths, maiming, and other inhu-
man treatment resulted to the experimental subjects. To the
extent that these experiments did not constitute war crimes they
constituted crimes against humanity.

227

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Gebhardt is charged with
being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely the
SS. The evidence shows that Gebhardt became a member of the
SS at least as early as 1933 and voluntarily remained in that
organization until the end of the war. As one of the most influ-
ential members of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS he was
criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes
against humanity as charged under counts two and three of the
indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl Geb-
hardt guilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

BLOME

The defendant Blome is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with personal responsibility for, and participa-
tion in Malaria, Lost Gas, and Sulfanilamide Experiments, the
extermination of tubercular Poles, and the execution of the
Euthanasia Program. Proof has also been adduced for the purpose
of showing that he participated in the freezing bacteriological
warfare, and blood coagulation experiments.

The charge with reference to sulfanilamide experiments has
been abandoned by the prosecution and hence will not be con-
sidered further.

The defendant Blome studied medicine at Goettingen and re-
ceived his medical degree in 1920. From 1924 to 1934 he engaged
in private practice. In the latter year he was summoned to Berlin
where, in 1935, he reorganized the German medical educational
system. He also acted as adjutant in the central office of the
German Red Cross and as business manager of the German Phy-
sicians’ Association, which position he held until the end of World
War II. In 1938 he became President of the Bureau of the Acad-
emy for International Medical Education. From 1939 on Blome
acted as deputy for Dr. Leonardo Conti who was leader of the
German Physicians’ Association, Head of the Main Office for
Public Health of the Party, and Leader of the National Socialist
Physicians’ Association. In 1941 he became a member of the
Reich Research Council, and in 1943 was appointed Plenipotentiary
for Cancer Research, connected with the research commission for
protection against biological warfare.

228

Blome joined the SA in 1931 and became the chief medical of-
ficer of the SA in the province of Mecklenburg. In 1934 he was
appointed a province office leader, and in the SA he attained a
rank equivalent to that of major general. In 1943 he was awarded
the highest decoration of the Nazi Party.

As Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, it was his duty to
determine which research problems should be studied and to as-
sign such problems to scientists best fitted to investigate them.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

The prosecution argues that Blome is criminally responsible for
participation in the freezing experiments as charged in the indict-
ment. In the subparagraph which particularly refers to freezing,
Blome is not named among the defendants charged with special
responsibility for the experiments. Moreover, the record does
not contain evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that
Blome bore any responsible part in the conduct of the freezing
experiments.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsi-
bility of the defendant in connection with the malaria experi-
ments.

LOST GAS EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal respon-
sibility of the defendant in connection with these experiments.

EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES

The basis for the prosecution’s case against the defendant in
this regard is to be found in a series of letters with reference
to the tuberculosis menace in the Reichsgau Wartheland, which
had been overrun by the German Reich and settled by its citi-
zens.

During the year 1941 the German Government began a program
of extermination of the Jewish population of the eastern occu-
pied territories. On 1 May 1942 Greiser, the German Military
Governor of Reichsgau Wartheland, wrote Himmler advising him
that “as to the 100,000 Jews in the district, the ‘special treatment’
approved by Himmler was about completed.” The letter then con-
tinued :

“* * * I ask you for permission to rescue the district im-
mediately, after the measures taken against the Jews, from a

229

menace which is increasing week by week, and use the exist-
ing and efficient special commandos for that purpose.

“There are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my
district who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The
number * * * infected with open tuberculosis is estimated at
about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasingly frightening
measure to the infection of Germans who came to the Warthe-
gau perfectly healthy * * *. A considerable number of well
known leading men, especially of the police, have been infected
lately and are not available for the war effort * * * The ever
increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the
deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health, Comrade Pro-
fessor Dr. Blome * * * .

“Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take ap-
propriate draconic steps against this public plague, I think I
could take responsibility * * * to have cases of open tuber-
culosis exterminated among the Polish race here in the Warthe-
gau. Of course, only a Pole should be handed over for such an
action who is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but
whose incurability is proved and certified by a public health
officer.

“Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your
approval in principle as soon as possible. This would enable
us to make the preparations with all necessary precautions now
to get the action against the Poles suffering from open tuber-
culosis under way, while the action against the Jews is in its
closing stages.

“Heil Hitler!

“Greiser”

Two days later Koppe, the police leader on Greiser’s staff, wrote
to Rudolf Brandt restating Greiser’s proposal and urging Brandt
to call the matter to Himmler’s attention. Brandt promptly ac-
knowledged the letter, advising Koppe that the proposal had been
referred to the Chief of the Security Police for opinion, but that
the final decision would rest with Hitler.

On 9 June 1942 the Chief of the Security Police rendered his
opinion to Himmler: “I have no scruples against having the pro-
tectorate members and stateless persons of the Polish race * * *
who are afflicted with open tuberculosis, submitted to the special
treatment in the sense of the proposal of Gau Leader Greiser.
* * * The individual measures, though, will first have to be dis-
cussed thoroughly with the Security Police, in order to carry out
the execution with the least possible attraction of attention.”
The opinions thus rendered undoubtedly received the full ap-

230

proval of Himmler, for on 27 June 1942 Rudolf Brandt passed
on to Greiser a letter from Himmler containing the following
decision :

“Dear Comrade Greiser:

“I have no objection to having protectorate people and state-
less persons of Polish origin who live within the territory of
the Warthegau and are infected with tuberculosis handed over
for special treatment as you suggest; as long as their disease
is incurable * * * . I would like to request, however, to discuss
the individual measures in detail with the Security Police first,
in order to assure inconspicuous accomplishment of the
task * * *.

[Signed] “H. Himmler”

The Himmler letter was acknowledged by Greiser on 21 No-
vember 1942, Greiser advising Himmler that in pursuance of the
permission given him to apply “special treatment” to tubercular
Poles he had made arrangements for an X-ray examination of all
people in the territory, but that now that “special treatment” had
been approved, Blome, Deputy Chief of the Public Health Office
of the NSDAP was raising objections to its execution. A copy of
Blome’s letter to Greiser was enclosed for Himmler’s information.

Blome’s letter to Greiser is dated 18 November 1942. It opens
by recalling various conversations between the writer and Greiser
concerning the campaign against tuberculosis in the Warthegau,
and then proceeds to consider the matter in detail; the letter
proceeding :

“With the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau,
an enormous danger has arisen for them * * * . What goes
for the Warthegau [* * *] also holds true for the other an-
nexed territories * * * .

“Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must
decide the most efficient way in which this can be done. There
are three ways to be taken into consideration:

“1. Special treatment of the seriously ill persons,

“2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons,

“3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients.

“For the planning, attention must be paid to different points
of view of a practical, political and psychological nature. Con-
sidering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the fol-
lowing : Aided by the X-ray battalion, we could reach the entire
population, German and Polish, of the Gau during the first half
of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment and isolation is to

231

be prepared and carried out according to the regulations of
Tuberculosis Relief. The approximately 35,000 Poles who are
incurable and infectious will be ‘specially treated’. All other
Polish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in
order to save them for work and to avoid their causing con-
tagion.”

Blome then proceeds, stating that he has made arrangements for
commencement of the “radical procedure”, but suggests that some
assurance should be procured that Hitler would agree to the
project. The letter then goes on to say —

“I could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago
stopped the program in the insane asylums, might at this mo-
ment consider a ‘special treatment’ of the incurably sick as
unsuitable and irresponsible from a political point of view. As
regards the Euthanasia Program it was a question of people
of German nationality afflicted with hereditary diseases. Now
it is a question of infected sick people of a subjugated na-
tion.”

Blome then voices the opinion that if the program is put into
execution, it cannot be kept secret and will be made the basis
for much adverse and harmful propaganda both at home and
abroad. He suggests accordingly that before the program is
commenced all points of view should again be presented to Hitler.

Continuing, Blome writes that if Hitler should forbid the rad-
ical proposal- suggested by Greiser, three other solutions were
open (1) consumptives and incurables could be isolated with their
relatives; (2) all infectious consumptives might be strictly iso-
lated in nursing establishments; (3) the consumptives might be
resettled in a particular area. If the latter plan were adopted, the
sick could reach the assigned territory on foot, and thus save the
costs of transportation.

Blome’s letter finally concludes —

“After a proper examination of all these considerations and
circumstances, the creation of a reservation, such as the reser-
vations for lepers, seems to be the most practicable solution.
Such a reservation should be able to be created in the shortest
time by means of the necessary settlement. Within the reser-
vation one could easily set up conditions for the strict isolation
of the strongly contagious.

“Even the case of the German consumptives represents an
extremely difficult problem for the Gau. But this cannot be
overcome, unless the problem of the Polish consumptives is
solved at the same time.”

232

The evidence shows that the letter from Greiser to Himmler,
with Blome’s suggestions enclosed, was acknowledged by Himmler
on 3 December 1942 with the following final decision:

“Dear Party Comrade Greiser:

“I have received your letter of 21 November 1942. I, too,
believe that it would be better to take into consideration the
misgivings set forth by Party Member Dr. Blome. In my opin-
ion it is impossible to proceed with the sick persons in the
manner intended, especially since, as you have informed me,
it will be possible to exploit the practical results of the tests
only in six months.

“I suggest you look for a suitable area to which the incura-
ble consumptives can be sent. Besides the incurables, other pa-
tients with less severe cases of tuberculosis could quite well
be put into this territory, too. This action would also, of course,
have to be exploited with the appropriate form of propaganda.

“Before writing you this letter I again thoroughly thought
over whether the original idea could not in some way be car-
ried out. However, I am convinced now that it is better to pro-
ceed the other way.”

The prosecution maintains that this series of letters which have
been referred to establishes the criminal participation of the
defendant Blome in the extermination of tubercular Poles. We
cannot follow the argument. It is probable that the proposal to
isolate tubercular Poles, as suggested by Blome and approved
by Himmler, was at least partially carried out; although the
record discloses but little with reference to what actually tran-
spired. It may be that in the course of such a program Poles may
have died as the result of being uprooted from their homes and
sent to isolation stations; but the record contains no direct cred-
ible evidence upon the subject. Blome explained from the witness
stand his letter to Greiser by saying that it was written in order
to prevent the extermination program of tubercular Poles from
being put into execution. Certainly, his letter indicates on its
face that he opposed the “special treatment” suggested by
Greiser.

We cannot say, therefore, that the explanation offered is wholly
without substance. It at least raises a reasonable doubt in our
minds concerning the matter. Blome knew Hitler and Himmler.
He well knew that any objections to “special treatment” based
on moral or humanitarian grounds would make but small impact
upon the minds of men like these Nazi leaders. He knew, more-
over, that before Greiser’s proposal for extermination would be
abandoned a plan which appeared to be better must be suggested.

233

If viewed from the standpoint of factual and psychological con-
siderations, it cannot be held that the letter was not well-worded
when considered as an attempt to put an end to the plan orig-
inally adopted, and to bring the substitution of another plan not
so drastic. Whatever may have been its purpose, the record shows
that, in this particular, the letter did in fact divert Himmler from
his original program and that as a result thereof the extermina-
tion plan was abandoned.

EUTHANASIA PROGRAM

Blome is charged with criminal responsibility in connection
with the Euthanasia Program, but we are of opinion that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain the charge.

BACTERIOLOGICAL WARFARE

The prosecution contends that the evidence in the case estab-
lished Blome’s guilt in connection with research concerning dif-
ferent forms of bacteriological warfare. Blome, who was pleni-
potentiary for cancer research in the Reich Research Council,
admits that the problem of cancer research was allied with the
research commission for protection against biological warfare.
He admits further, that he was placed in charge of an institute
near Poznan in which the problems of biological warfare were to
be investigated, but states that the work being done at the Poznan
institute was interrupted in March 1945 by the advance of the
Russian army.

This latter fact seems to be confirmed by the evidence. In this
connection Schreiber appeared as a witness before the Inter-
national Military Tribunal. His testimony given there has been
received in evidence before this Tribunal. From the testimony it
appears that Blome visited Schreiber at the Military Medical
Academy, Berlin, during March 1945 and stated to him that he,
Blome, had abandoned his institute in Poznan due to the advance
of the Russians, but before leaving had attempted to destroy his
installations as he feared that the Russians might discover that
preparations had been made in the institute for experiments on
human beings.

Counsel for the prosecution has brought to our judicial notice
a finding by the International Military Tribunal in its judgment
wherein it is found that —

“In July 1943 experimental work was begun in preparation
for a campaign of bacteriological warfare; Soviet prisoners of
war were used in the medical experiments, which more often

234

than not proved fatal.” ( See “Trial of the Major War Crimi-
nals” , Vol. I, p. 231.)

It is submitted by the prosecution that this finding of the In-
ternational Military Tribunal, when considered in connection with
other evidence in the case, requires this Tribunal to find the de-
fendant Blome guilty under the indictment.

The suggestion is not tenable. It may well be that defendant
Blome was preparing to experiment upon human beings in con-
nection with bacteriological warfare, but the record fails to dis-
close that fact, or that he ever actually conducted experiments.
The charge of the prosecution on this item is not sustained.

POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS

The prosecution has introduced evidence which suggests that
Blome may be criminally responsible for polygal experiments
conducted by Rascher at Dachau, in which Russian prisoners
of war were used as experimental subjects. In our view the evi-
dence does no more than raise a strong suspicion; it does not
sustain the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Kurt
Blome not guilty as charged under the indictment and directs
that he be released from custody under the indictment when this
Tribunal presently adjourns.

RUDOLF BRANDT

Under counts two and three of the indictment the defendant
Rudolf Brandt is charged with special responsibility for, and
participation in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sul-
fanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Trans-
plantation, Sea Water, Epidemic Jaundice, Sterilization, and Ty-
phus Experiments. He is also charged under these counts with
criminal responsibility for the murder of 112 Jews for the pur-
pose of completing a Skeleton Collection for the Reich University
of Strasbourg, for the murder and ill-treatment of tubercular
Poles, and for the Euthanasia Program carried out by the Ger-
man Reich.

Under count four of the indictment he is charged with mem-
bership in an organization declared criminal by the judgment
of the International Military Tribunal.

The prosecution has abandoned the charge of participation in

841584 — 49—16

235

the bone, muscle and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation
experiment; hence, it will not be considered further.

The defendant Rudolf Brandt joined the Nazi Party in 1932.
He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the SS in 1935. In
approximately ten years he rose to the rank of SS colonel. He
is one of the three defendants in the case who is not a physician.

From the commencement of his career in the Nazi organiza-
tion until his capture by the Allied Forces in 1945 he was di-
rectly subordinate to and closely associated with the leader of
the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and he had full knowledge of his
chief’s personal and official interests and activities.

To Himmler, Rudolf Brandt was first of all an important and
trusted clerical assistant. The record shows him to have been an
unusually proficient stenographer. That is the road by which he
finally arrived at a position of considerable power and authority
as personal Referent on Himmler’s Personal Staff, Ministerial
Counsellor in the Ministry of the Interior, and a member of the
Ahnenerbe. Acting for Himmler during his absences, Rudolf
Brandt, in these positions, had a tremendous opportunity to and
did exercise personal judgment and discretion in many serious
and important matters.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

These experiments extended from March to August 1942. Their
details are dealt with elsewhere in this judgment. A portion of
the evidence in this specification consists of correspondence be-
tween the defendant Rudolf Brandt and various others in the
German military service who were personally engaged in, or
were closely connected with, the physical details of the experi-
ments performed. The correspondence just previously mentioned
was admitted in evidence, is well authenticated, and even standing
alone, without additional oral testimony — of which there was
also plenty — is deemed amply sufficient to disclose beyond reason-
able doubt that except for the sanction and diligent cooperation
of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, or someone occupying his posi-
tion, the high-altitude experiments mentioned in the indictment
could not have been conducted.

Taken altogether, the evidence on this item discloses that dur-
ing the period between March and August 1942, certain medical
experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp in
Germany for the benefit of the German Air Force, to determine
the limits of human endurance and existence at extremely high
altitudes. Various human beings, unwillingly, and entirely with-
out their consent, were required and compelled to, and did par-
ticipate in the aforesaid experiments as subjects thereof. The

236

said nonconsenting subjects were prisoners of war, German civil-
ians and civilians from German occupied territory, whose exact
citizenship, in many cases, could not be ascertained. Among the
experimental subjects there were numerous deaths, estimated by
witnesses at 70 or 80, resulting directly from compulsory participa-
tion in the experiments. Exact data on the total fatalities cannot
be stated, but there is convincing evidence that during the last
day’s operation of the high-altitude experiments, five participat-
ing and nonconsenting subjects died as the result thereof. The
greater number of the experimental subjects suffered grave in-
jury, torture and ill-treatment.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

In this experiment, or series of experiments, Rudolf Brandt
is established as an intermediary and necessary aid between
Heinrich Himmler, who authorized the work to be done, and those
who were appointed by him actually to perform the ruthless
task. Evidence is conclusive that Rudolf Brandt at all times
knew exactly what experimental processes would be carried out.
He knew that the procedure followed was to select from the
inmates at Dachau such human subjects as were considered most
suitable for experimental purposes. He knew that no consent was
ever deemed necessary from the persons upon whom the experi-
ments were to be performed. He knew that among the experi-
mental subjects were non-German nationals, including civilians
and prisoners of war.

The exact number of deaths cannot be ascertained from the
evidence, but that fatalities occurred among the experimental
subjects has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS

On this specification, an affidavit of the defendant Rudolf
Brandt which is confirmed by other evidence reads substantially
as follows:

“Towards the end of the year 1939, experiments were con-
ducted at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on persons
who were certainly not all volunteers, in order to ascertain the
efficacy of the different treatment of wounds inflicted by Lost
gas. Lost is a poisonous gas which produces injurious effects
on the epidermis. I think it is generally known as mustard gas.
* * * Therefore, experiments were conducted on inmates of
concentration camps. As far as I understand, the experiments
consisted of inflicting wounds upon various parts of the bodies

237

of the experimental subjects and infecting them thereafter
with Lost. Various methods of treatment were applied in order
to determine the most effective one * * * .

“In the second half of 1942, Hirt (Dr. August Hirt) to-
gether with * * * who served in the Luftwaffe, initiated ex-
periments on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp.
The inmates for these as well as other experiments were simply
chosen by Pohl’s office, the Economic and Administrative Main
Office, WVHA. In order to be employed for such purposes, the
experiments on human subjects with Lost gas had been carried
on during the years 1943 and 1944 in the Sachsenhausen con-
centration camp as well as in the Natzweiler concentration
camp. The result was that some of the inmates died.”

In the course of the gas experiments above referred to, tes-
timony in the record discloses that a considerable amount of
correspondence was carried on by persons concerned (except the
experimental subjects themselves), and it appears that some, at
least, of this was referred to Rudolf Brandt for action, upon
which he personally intervened sufficiently to associate himself
actively with the conduct of the work being done. And so he must
be regarded as criminally responsible.

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

Rudolf Brandt is charged, as in the indictment set forth, with
special responsibility under the above heading. The means by
which sterilization experiments or processes were to be made or
utilized included X-ray treatment, surgery, and drugs.

No specific instances of any drug being actually used have
been clearly shown by oral testimony, or exhibits herein sub-
mitted in evidence. In reference to the X-ray and surgery meth-
ods of sterilization, however, Rudolf Brandt is shown by the
evidence to have taken a moving part in the preparation of
plans, and in their execution, sufficient to justify the Tribunal in
finding his criminal connection therewith. An affidavit executed
by the defendant Rudolf Brandt reads as follows:

“Himmler was extremely interested in the development of
a cheap, rapid sterilization method which could be used against
enemies of Germany, such as the Russians, Poles, and Jews.
One hoped thereby not only to defeat the enemy, but to ex-
terminate him. The capacity for work of the sterilized persons
could be exploited by Germany, while the danger of propaga-
tion would be eliminated. This mass sterilization was part of
Himmler’s racial theory; particular time and care were devoted
to these sterilization experiments.”

238

We learn from the record that persons subjected to treatment
were “young, well-built inmates of concentration camps who were
in the best of health, and these were Poles, Russians, French,
and prisoners of war.”

It goes without saying that the work done in conformity with
the plans of Himmler, substantially aided by the cooperation of
Rudolf Brandt, brought maiming and suffering to great numbers
of people.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Medical experiments ostensibly conducted to benefit Germany
in the prevention of typhus fever were carried on in the Natz-
weiler concentration camp beginning with the year 1942. The de-
tails of these experiments have been dealt with elsewhere in this
judgment.

In the evidence it is proved that not less than 50 experimental
subjects died as a direct result of their participation in these
typhus experiments. Persons of all nationalities were used as
subjects. Regarding these enterprises, Rudolf Brandt, in his own
affidavit, admits that these experimental subjects did not vol-
unteer but were conscripted and compelled to serve without their
consent being sought or given.

Inasmuch as information on the typhus experiments, both be-
fore and after their performance, was furnished, as a matter of
course, to Himmler through Brandt, the defendant’s full knowl-
edge of them is regarded as definitely proven.

Here, again, the managing hand of the defendant is shown.
The smooth operation of these experiments is demonstrated to
have been contingent upon the diligence with which Rudolf
Brandt arranged for the supply of quotas of suitable human ex-
perimental material to the physicians at the scene of the ex-
periment.

In view of these proven facts, the defendant Rudolf Brandt
must be held and considered as one of the defendants responsible
for performance of illegal medical experiments where deaths
resulted to the nonconsenting human subjects.

SKELETON COLLECTION

In response to a request by Rudolf Brandt, on 9 February
1942 the defendant Sievers, business manager of the Ahnenerbe,
submitted to him certain data on the alleged desirability of se-
curing a Jewish skeleton collection for the Reich University of
Strasbourg. The report furnished to the defendant Brandt con-
tained among other things the following:

239

“By procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commis-
sars, who personified a repulsive yet characteristic humanity,
we have the opportunity of obtaining tangible scientific evi-
dence. The actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls with-
out difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued
to the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive
all Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field police/’

On 27 February 1942, Rudolf Brandt informed defendant
Sievers that Himmler would support the enterprise and would
place everything necessary at his disposal; and that Sievers
should report again in connection with the undertaking.

Testimony and exhibits placed before this Court are abundantly
sufficient to show that the plan mentioned was actually put into
operation; that not less than 86 people were murdered for the
sole purpose of obtaining their skeletons. Much more could be
said in reference to this revolting topic, but it would add nothing
to the judgment. The fact that Rudolf Brandt showed an initial
interest and collaborated in the undertaking is enough to require
a finding that he is guilty of murder in connection with the
program.

MALARIA, SEA-WATER, AND EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS; AND
THE CHARGE OF THE MURDER AND MISTREATMENT OF POLES

It appears to be well established that Himmler sponsored,
supported, furthered or initiated each of these enterprises. Doubt-
less Brandt knew what was going on, and perhaps he helped in
the program. The evidence is not sufficient, however, to justify
such a finding.

The Tribunal finds that the defendant Rudolf Brandt was an
accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, was
knowingly connected with plans and enterprises involving, and
was a member of an organization or group connected with, the
commission of medical experiments on non-German nationals,
without their consent, in the course of which experiments mur-
ders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman
acts were committed; and the murder of no less than 86 non-
German Jews for a skeleton collection. To the extent that these
crimes were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Rudolf Brandt is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

240

The evidence shows that Rudolf Brandt became a member of
the SS in 1933, and remained in this organization until the end
of the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally impli-
cated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against hu-
manity, as charged under counts two and three of the indict-
ment.

An extremely persuasive and interesting brief on behalf of
the defendant Rudolf Brandt, filed by his attorney, has received
careful attention by this Tribunal. Therein it is urged that
Rudolf Brandt's position under Heinrich Himmler was one of
such subordination, his personal character so essentially mild,
and he was so dominated by his chief, that the full significance
of the crimes in which he became engulfed came to him with a
shock only when he went to trial. This plea is offered in mitiga-
tion of appalling offenses in which the defendant Brandt is said
to have played only an unassuming role.

If it be thought for even a moment that the part played by
Rudolf Brandt was relatively unimportant when compared with
the enormity of the charges proved by the evidence, let it be said
that every Himmler must have his Brandt else the plans of a
master criminal would never be put into execution.

The Tribunal, therefore, cannot accept the thesis.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Ru-
dolf Brandt is guilty under counts two, three and four of the
indictment.

MRU0OWSKY

The defendant is charged under counts two and three of the
indictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,
Freezing, Malaria, Sulfanilamide, Typhus, Poison, Epidemic Jaun-
dice, and Incendiary Bomb Experiments. Charges were made con-
cerning certain other medical experiments, but they have been
abandoned by the prosecution.

Mrugowsky joined the NSDAP in 1930 and the SS in 1931.
He ultimately rose to the rank of senior colonel in the Waffen SS.

In 1938 Mrugowsky became a member of the staff of the SS
medical office, as hygienist. At the beginning of 1939 he founded
the Hygiene Bacteriological Testing Station of the SS in Berlin,
whose purpose was to combat epidemics in the SS garrison troops
of the Waffen SS. In 1940 the station was enlarged and renamed
the “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS.” Mrugowsky became

241

its chief and at the same time Chief of the Office for Hygiene
in the Medical Service of the Waffen SS under Genzken.

In his dual capacity Mrugowsky was answerable to Genzken in
all questions concerning epidemic control and hygiene in the
Waffen SS, but as Chief of the Hygiene Institute, was military
superior and commander of the Institute and its affiliated insti-
tutions with power to issue orders.

The Medical Service of the Waffen SS was reorganized on 1
September 1943. Mrugowsky and the Hygiene Institute were
transferred from under Genzken and became directly subordi-
nated to Grawitz as Reich Physician SS and Police. By this transfer
Mrugowsky became chief hygienist under Grawitz, but remained
Chief of the Hygiene Institute.

TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS

The details concerning the vaccine experiments conducted at
Buchenwald concentration camp have been related elsewhere in
this judgment and hence the details need no further discussion.

As pointed out in the case against Handloser, there is evidence
in the record that on 29 December 1941 a conference was held
in Berlin attended by Mrugowsky at which the decision was
reached to begin research tests at Buchenwald to determine the
efficacy of egg yolk, and other vaccines as protection against
typhus. As a result of the conference, such an experimental sta-
tion was established at Buchenwald under the direction of Dr.
Ding with the defendant Hoven acting as his deputy.

Except for a few tests conducted early in 1942, all experiments
were carried out in Block 46 — so-called clinical block of the sta-
tion. In the autumn of 1943 a vaccine production department
was established in Block 50 and this also came under the super-
vision of Dr. Ding-Schuler.

It would burden this judgment unnecessarily to narrate in
detail the various tests and experiments carried out by Ding at
Buchenwald as a result of the decisions reached at higher levels.
All of them conformed to a more or less uniform pattern, with
certain groups of inmates being inoculated with vaccines, other
groups (known as control groups) being given no immunization,
and finally both groups being artificially infected with a virulent
virus, and the results noted upon the experimental subjects.

We learn from the Ding diary, the authenticity and reliability
of which has been discussed at length in other portions of the
judgment, the methods employed, and the results obtained in
at least some of the experiments.

For example: In “Typhus vaccination material research series
I”, which began on 6 January 1942, 135 inmates were vaccinated

242

with Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring-Normal, or Beh-
ring-Strong, vaccines; 10 persons were used for control. On 3
March 1942 all test subjects, including control persons, were ar-
tificially infected with virulent virus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki fur-
nished by the Robert Koch Institute. Five deaths occurred; three
in the control group and two among the vaccinated subjects.

In “Typhus vaccine, research series II”, from 19 August to
4 September 1942, 40 persons were vaccinated with two different
vaccines ; 19 persons were used for control. Subsequently all were
artificially infected with virulent virus; four deaths among the
control persons occurred.

The entries in the diary concerning “Typhus vaccine experi-
mental series VII” read as follows :

“28 May 43-18 June 1943: Carrying out of typhus vac-
cination for immunization with the following vaccine (1) 20
persons with vaccine ‘Asid’, (2) 20 persons with vaccine ‘Asid
Adsorbat’, (3) 20 persons with vaccine ‘Weigl’ of the Institute
for Typhus and Virus Research of the High Command,
Army (OKH) Krakow (Eyer) * * *. All experimental persons
got very serious typhus. 7 Sept. 43: Chart and case history
completed. The experimental series was concluded. 53 deaths
(18 with ‘Asid’) (18 with ‘Asid Adsorbat’) (9 with ‘Weigl’)
(8 control) 9 Sep. 43: Charts and case histories delivered to
Berlin. Dr. Ding, SS Sturmbannfuehrer.”

Concerning “Typhus vaccine experimental series VIII” began
on 8 March 1944 the following entry appears in the diary:

“Suggested by Colonel M.C. of the Air Corps, Professor
Rose (Oberstarzt) the vaccine ‘Kopenhagen’ (Ipsen-Murine-vac-
cine), produced from mouse liver by the national serum in-
stitute in Copenhagen, was tested for its compatibility on
humans. 20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by in-
tramuscular injection * * *, 10 persons were contemplated for
control and comparison. 4 of the 30 persons were eliminated
before the start of the artificial injection because of intermit-
tent sickness * * * . The remaining experimental persons were
infected on 16 April 44 by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc.
typhus sick fresh blood * * * . The following fell sick: 17
persons immunized: 9 medium, 8 seriously; 9 persons control,
2 medium, 7 seriously * * * . 2 June 44: The experimental
series was concluded. 13 June 44: Chart and case history com-
pleted and sent to Berlin. 6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen) (3 control).
Dr. Ding.”

“Typhus vaccine experimental series IX” began on 17 July

243

1944. Twenty persons were immunized with the vaccine “Weimar”
produced by the department for Typhus and Virus Research of
the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; and for comparison,
another group of 20 persons were immunized with vaccine
“Weigl” produced from lice by the Army High Command
(OKH) in Cracow [Krakow]. Still another group of 20 persons
were used for the control group. On 6 September 1944 the 60
experimental persons were infected with fresh blood “sick with
typhus” which was injected into the upper arm. As a result,
all experimental persons became sick, some seriously. The narra-
tion of this experimental series closes with the cryptic report:
“4 Nov 44: Chart and case history completed, 24 deaths (5
‘Weigl’) (19 Control). Dr. Schuler.”

These entries are but few of the many which we have taken
at random from the Ding diary, dealing with the sordid murders
of defenseless victims in the name of Nazi medical science. Many
more could be set forth if time and space permitted. An analysis
of the Ding diary discloses that no less than 729 concentration
camp inmates were experimented on with typhus, at least 154
of whom died. And this toll of death takes no account of the
certain demise of scores of so-called “passage” persons who were
artificially infected with typhus for the sole purpose of having
at hand an ever-ready supply of fresh blood “sick with typhus”
to be used to infect the experimental subjects.

There is some evidence to the effect that the camp inmates used
as subjects in the first series submitted to being used as experi-
mental subjects after being told that the experiments were harm-
less and that additional food would be given to volunteers. But
these victims were not informed that they would be artificially
infected with a highly virulent virus nor that they might die
as a result. Certainly no one would seriously suggest that under
the circumstances these men gave their legal consent to act as
subjects. One does not ordinarily consent to be the special object
of a murder, and if one did, such consent would not absolve his
slayer.

Later, when news of what was happening in Block 46 became
generally known in the camp, it was no longer possible to delude
the inmates into offering themselves as victims. Thereupon, the
shabby pretense of seeking volunteers was dropped and the ex-
perimental subjects were taken arbitrarily from a list of in-
mates prepared by the camp administration.

Other experiments were also carried out in Block 46 of Bu-
chenwald to test typhoid, para-typhoid A and B, and yellow fever.

As in the typhus experiments, nonconsenting human subjects
were used, including not only German criminal prisoners but also

244

Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, both civilians and prisoners of
war.

In all the typhus experiments, death resulted to many experi-
mental subjects. As to each of these experiments the evidence is
overwhelming that they were carried out by Ding under the orders
or authority of the defendant Mrugowsky.

POISON EXPERIMENTS

On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky, Ding, and a certain Dr.
Widmann carried out an experiment with aconitin nitrate pro-
jectiles in the Sachenshausen concentration camp. Details of the
experiment are fully explained by a “Top Secret” report of the
sordid affair in a letter written by the defendant Mrugowsky
to the Criminological Institute, Berlin. The letter follows:

“Subject: Experiments with aconitin nitrate projectiles.

To the Criminological Institute

Attn: Dr. Widmann

Berlin

“In the presence of SS Strumbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr.
Widmann, and the undersigned, experiments with aconitin
nitrate projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on
5 persons who had been condemned to death. The projectiles
in question were of a 7.65-mm caliber, filled with crystalized
poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying position, were
each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two
of them were cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect
of the poison was to be observed. These two experimental sub-
jects were therefore exempted.

“The entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities.
Evidently, the arteria femolaries of one of the subjects was in-
jured. A light stream of blood issued from the wound. But the
bleeding stopped after a short time. The loss of blood was esti-
mated as having been at the most % of a liter, and consequently
was on no account fatal.

“The symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising
similarity. At first no peculiarities appeared. After 20-25 min-
utes a motor agitation and a slight ptyalism set in but stopped
again. After 40 to 45 minutes a stronger salivation set in. The
poisoned persons swallowed repeatedly, but later the flow of
saliva became so strong that it could not even be overcome by
swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their mouths. Then chok-
ing and vomiting set in.

“After 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer

245

be felt. The third had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his
blood pressure was 90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A
reduction of blood pressure was evident.

“During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not
show any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three
showed a medium dilation together with a retarded light reac-
tion. Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breath-
ing inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The
pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65
minutes the patellar and aehilles tendon reflexes of the poisoned
subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two of them
were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the third
were still positive, while the lower were negative. After approx-
imately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing
heavily, this was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest.
Then the heavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated res-
piration, accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned
persons tried in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four
fingers of his hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but never-
theless could not vomit. His face was flushed.

“The other two experimental subjects had already early
shown a pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The
motor unrest increased so much that the persons flung them-
selves up, then down, rolled their eyes, and made meaningless
motions with their hands and arms. Finally the agitation sub-
sided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned
lay motionless. Masseter spasms and urination were observed in
one case. Death occurred 121, 123 and 129 minutes after entry
of the projectile.

“Summary. The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg.
of aconitin nitrate in solid form had, in spite of only insignifi-
cant injuries, a deadly effect after two hours. Poisoning showed
20 to 25 minutes after injury. The main reactions were: saliva-
tion, alteration of the pupils, negative tendon reflexes, motor
unrest, and extreme nausea.

“Mrugowsky

“S3 Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief.”

The defendant attempts to meet this charge with the defense
that the subjects used in this experiment were persons who had
been condemned to death and that he, Mrugowsky, had been ap-
pointed as their legal executioner.

One need but read the letter introduced in evidence to arrive
at the conclusion that the defense has no validity. This was not
a legal execution carried out in conformance with the laws and

246

rules of war, but a criminal medical experiment wherein wounds
were inflicted on prisoners with the sole end in view of determin-
ing the effectiveness of poisoned bullets as a means of taking life.
The hapless victims of this dastardly torture were Russian pris-
oners of war, entitled to the protection afforded by the laws of
civilized nations. As has been said, in substance, in this judgment:
While under certain specific conditions the rules of land warfare
may recognize the validity of an execution by shooting, it will
not under any circumstances countenance the infliction of death
by maiming or torture.

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

That Mrugowsky rendered assistance to Gebhardt in the sulfa-
nilamide experiments at Ravensbrueck is plainly shown by the
record. Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at Geb-
hardt’s disposal. He furnished the cultures for the infections.
It was on the suggestion of Mrugowsky’s office that wood shavings
and ground glass were placed in the wounds of the subjects so
that battlefield wounds would be more closely simulated.

GAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS

Toward the end of 1942 a conference was held in the Military
Medical Academy, Berlin, to discuss the effects of gas oedema
serum on wounded persons. During the conference, several cases
were reported in which wounded soldiers who had received gas
oedema serum injections in large quantities suddenly died without
apparent reason. Mrugowsky, who participated in the conference,
expressed the possibility that perhaps the deaths had been due
to the phenol content of the serum. As a step toward solving the
problem Mrugowsky ordered Dr. Ding-Schuler, his subordinate, to
take part in a euthanasia killing with phenol and to report on the
results in detail.

In pursuance of the order given, Dr. Ding and the defendant
Hoven killed some of the concentration camp inmates at Ruchen-
wald with phenol injections and Ding reported his findings to his
superior officer, Mrugowsky, as required by the order.

FREEZING, INCENDIARY BOMB, AND EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE
EXPERIMENTS

As to these items the Tribunal is of the view that the evidence
is insufficient to sustain the charges.

It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defend-
ant Mrugowsky was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted,
took a consenting part in, and was knowingly connected with

247

plans and enterprises involving medical experiments on non-
German nationals, without their consent, in the course of which
experiments, murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities,
and other inhuman acts were committed. To the extent that these
crimes were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.

COUNT FOUR

Under count four of the indictment, the defendant is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

The evidence proves that Mrugowsky joined the NSDAP in
1930 and voluntarily became a member of the Waffen SS in 1931.
He remained in these organizations throughout the war. As a
member of the Waffen SS, he was criminally implicated in the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity as dis-
cussed in this judgment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant
Joachim Mrugowsky is guilty under counts two, three, and four of
the indictment.

POPPENDICK

The defendant Poppendick is charged under counts two and
three of the indictment with personal responsibility for, and
participation in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Sulfanilamide,
Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, Sterilization, Typhus, and Poison
experiments. He is charged under count four with being a member
of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal.

The charges with reference to high-altitude and poison experi-
ments have been abandoned by the prosecution and hence will
not be considered further.

Poppendick studied medicine at several German universities
from 1921 to 1926 and passed his state examination in December
of the latter year. He joined the NSDAP on 1 March 1932 and the
SS on 1 July following. He rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel
in the SS and to the rank of senior colonel in the Waffen SS. He
was also a member of a Nazi Physicians’ Association. In August
1935 he was appointed as a physician in the Main Race and
Settlement Office in Berlin and became chief physician of that
office in 1941. He held the latter appointment until the fall of
1944.

248

From 1 September 1939 until sometime in 1941, Poppendick
was on active duty in the army as a surgeon. During the latter
year he resumed his duties with the Race and Settlement Office in
Berlin. Between 1939 and 1943, he performed some duties as a
member of the staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police, Dr.
Grawitz, taking care of special assignments.

In the fall of 1943 Poppendick was made Chief of the Personal
Office of Grawitz, which position he retained until the end of the
war.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is that Poppendick gained knowledge of the freez-
ing experiments conducted by Rascher at Dachau, as the result of
a conference held between Rascher, Grawitz, and Poppendick on
13 January 1943 for the purpose of discussing certain phases of
the research. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Poppendick was criminally connected with these ex-
periments.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

The prosecution contends that Poppendick is criminally respon-
sible for the malaria experiments conducted by Dr. Schilling at
Dachau. Dr. Ploetner was engaged in the malaria experiments
as a subordinate of Schilling. Sievers’ Diary, which is in evi-
dence, contains a notation that on 23 May 1944 Grawitz, Poppen-
dick, Ploetner, and Sievers held a conference, which had probably
been arranged by Poppendick three days previously by telephone.
The subject of the conference is not disclosed by the diary entry,
but it appears elsewhere in the diary that on 31 May 1944 Grawitz
sanctioned Ploetner’s collaboration with Schilling.

Poppendick testified as a witness on his own behalf that he
had heard that Schilling was carrying on special investigations
at Dachau concerning immunity from malaria. He stated further
that his knowledge of the nature of the investigations went
no further. The record does not contradict his testimony.

The Tribunal finds that the evidence does not disclose beyond
a reasonable doubt that Poppendick was criminally connected with
the malaria experiments.

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Poppendick attended the Third Meeting of Consulting Surgeons
at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin, and heard lectures by
Gebhardt and Fischer concerning the sulfanilamide experiments,
which have been discussed elsewhere in this judgment. Under

249

date of 7 September 1942 he signed a certificate to a true copy
of a report, concerning sulfanilamide experiments which had
been conducted at Ravensbrueck, made by Gebhardt to Grawitz.
Grawitz forwarded the report, or a certified copy thereof, to
Himmler.

We are of the opinion that Poppendick had knowledge of the
criminal nature of the experiments conducted by Gebhardt and
Fischer at Ravensbrueck, but the defendant’s criminal connection
with any such experiments has not been proved by the evidence.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

The evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that
Poppendick was criminally implicated in these experiments.

EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

The evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that
Poppendick was criminally implicated in these experiments.

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

Poppendick was Chief Physician of the Main Race and Settle-
ment Office. The judgment of the International Military Tribunal
found that this office was “active in carrying out schemes for
Germanization of occupied territories according to the racial prin-
ciples of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation of
Jews and other foreign nationals.” ( See the “Trial of the Major
War Criminals,” Vol. 1, p. 270.)

Testifying before this Tribunal, Poppendick stated that the Nazi
racial policy was twofold in aspect; one policy being positive,
the other, negative in character. The positive policy included many
matters, one being the encouragement of German families to pro-
duce more children. The negative policy concerned the steriliza-
tion and extermination of non-Aryans as well as other measures
to reduce the non-Aryan population. According to Poppendick’s
testimony, he was not concerned with the execution of negative,
but only with positive measures.

By letter dated 29 May 1941 Grawitz wrote to Himmler con-
cerning a conference held on 27 May 1941 at which Dr. Clauberg
was present, and discussed his “new method of sterilization of
inferior women without an operation.”

Poppendick by letter dated 4 June 1941, which referred to a
previous telephone conversation with Grawitz, wrote Rudolf
Brandt stating that he was enclosing “the list of physicians who
are prepared to perform the treatment of sterility” as requested

250

by Himmler. The list referred to is evidently the same as was
contained in a letter from Grawitz to Himmler, dated 30 May
1941, which stated : “In the following, I submit a list of specialists
in charge of the treatment of sterility in women according to the
method of Professor Clauberg.”

It is shown by the evidence that Clauberg later carried out
sterilization experiments on Jewesses at Auschwitz. Similar ex-
periments were carried out in other concentration camps by SS
doctors who were subordinate to Grawitz. It is evident that Pop-
pendick knew of these sterilization experiments, although it is
not shown that he was criminally connected with them.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

It is not clear from the evidence that Poppendick was criminally
connected with, or had knowledge of, the nature of the typhus
experiments at Buchenwald, or the type of subjects upon which
they were conducted.

INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS

There is some evidence in the record to the effect that after
incendiary bomb experiments were completed at Buchenwald, re-
ports of the experiments were forwarded to Poppendick and
Mrugowsky. It is evident that through the reports Poppendick
gained knowledge of the nature of the experiments, but the record
fails to show criminal responsibility of the defendant in connec-
tion therewith.

PHLEGMON EXPERIMENTS

The evidence clearly proves Poppendick’s knowledge of these
experiments, but it fails to show the defendant’s criminal con-
nection therewith.

POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS

The record does not show Poppendick’s knowledge of or con-
nection with these experiments.

HORMONE EXPERIMENTS

The prosecution contends that the evidence shows Poppendick’s
criminal responsibility in connection with a series of experi-
ments conducted at Buchenwald by Dr. Varnet, a Danish physician
who claimed to have discovered a method of curing homosexuality
by transplantation of an artificial gland.

841584 — 49—17

251

Under date 15 July 1944, Poppendick wrote to Dr. Ding at the
concentration camp Buchenwald as follows:

“By request of the Reichsfuehrer SS the Danish doctor SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Varnet has been given opportunity to
continue his hormone research with the SS, particularly the
development of his artificial gland. The Reichsfuehrer SS antic-
ipates certain results from the treatment of homosexuals with
Varnet’s artificial gland. The technical preparations have come
to such a point that experiments on human beings can be
started within a reasonable space of time.

“As SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Lolling informed me, the con-
centration camp Weimar-Buchenwald has been directed to
make available 5 prisoners for SS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet's
experiments. These prisoners will be made available to SS
Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet by the camp physician at any time.

“SS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet intends to go to Buchenwald
shortly in order to make certain necessary preliminary tests
on these prisoners. In case there will be special laboratory tests,
you are requested to assist Varnet within the scope of your
possibilities.

“Particulars on Var net's research were sent today to the
camp physician of Weimar-Buchenwald for his information."

There is evidence that during the summer of 1944 Dr. Varnet
conducted the experiments referred to in Poppendick’s letter.
However, the nationality of the prisoners used for the experiments
is not shown, nor has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the experiments were harmful or caused death, or injury to
the experimental subjects.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence concerning
the charges made by the prosecution against the defendant Pop-
pendick. Certainly the evidence raises a strong suspicion that he
was involved in the experiments. He at least had notice of them
and of their consequences. He knew also that they were being
carried on by the SS, of which he was and remained a member.

But this Tribunal, however, cannot convict upon mere suspicion ;
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary. The evidence
is insufficient to sustain guilt under counts two and three of the
indictment.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

The defendant Poppendick is charged with membership in an
organization declared criminal by the judgment of the Interna-
tional Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. Poppendick joined the

252

SS in July 1932. He remained in the SS voluntarily throughout
the war, with actual knowledge of the fact that that organization
was being used for the commission of acts now declared criminal
by Control Council Law No. 10. He must, therefore, be found
guilty under count four of the indictment.

With reference to the nature of punishment which should be
imposed under such circumstances, the International Military
Tribunal has made the following recommendation:

“1. That so far as possible throughout the four zones of
occupation in Germany the classifications, sanctions, and penal-
ties be standardized. Uniformity of treatment so far as practical
should be a basic principle. This does not, of course, mean that
discretion in sentencing should not be vested in the Court; but
the discretion should be within fixed limits appropriate to the
nature of the crime.

“2. Law No. 10 * * * leaves punishment entirely to the
discretion of the trial court even to the extent of inflicting the
death penalty.

“The De-Nazification Law of 5 March 1946, however, passed
for Bavaria, Greater Hesse, and Wuerttemberg-Baden, provides
definite sentences for punishment in each type of offense. The
Tribunal recommends that in no case should punishment im-
posed under Law No. 10 upon any members of an organiza-
tion or group declared by the Tribunal to be criminal exceed
the punishment fixed by the De-Nazification Law. No person
should be punished under both laws.”

( See “ Trial of the Major War Criminals Vol. 1, p. 257.)

In weighing the punishment, if any, which should be meted out
to the defendant for his guilt by reason of the charge contained
in count four of the indictment, this Tribunal will give such* con-
sideration to the recommendations of the International Military
Tribunal as may under the premises seem meet and proper.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds the defendant Helmut Poppendick
not guilty under counts two and three of the indictment, and finds
and adjudges the defendant Helmut Poppendick guilty as charged
in the fourth count of the indictment.

SIEVERS

The defendant Sievers is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for, and participa-
tion in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sea-Water,

253

Epidemic Jaundice, and Typhus Experiments, and with extermi-
nation of Jews to complete a skeleton collection. Under count
four of the indictment, he is charged with being a member of an
organization declared criminal by the judgment of the Interna-
tional Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

The prosecution has abandoned the charge of participation in
the Epidemic Jaundice experiments, and hence, this charge will
not be considered further.

Sievers is one of the three defendants who are not physicians.
He joined the NSDAP in 1929 and renewed his membership in the
Nazi Party in 1933. He joined the SS at the end of 1935 on the
suggestion of Himmler. In this organization he attained the rank
of a Standartenfuehrer (colonel).

From 1 July 1935 until the war ended, Sievers was a member
of Himmler’s personal staff and Reich Business Manager of the
Ahnenerbe Society. According to a statute of 1 January 1939, the
purpose of the Ahnenerbe was to support scientific research con-
cerning the culture and heritage of the Nordic race. The Board
of Directors was composed of Himmler as president, Dr. Wuest
as curator, and Sievers as the business manager. Sievers was
responsible for the business organization administration and the
budget of the Ahnenerbe. The place of business was Berlin. Sievers
supported and participated in the medical experiments which are
the subject of the indictment, primarily through the Institute of
Military Scientific Research which was established by order of
Himmler dated 7 July 1942 and was administratively attached to
the Ahnenerbe.

On 1 January 1942 Himmler ordered the establishment of an
entomological institute; in March 1942 the Institute Dr. Rascher
in Dachau ; and in the first month of the year 1942, the Institute
Dr. Hirt, at Strasbourg. These subsequently became part of
the Institute for Military Scientific Research.

Sievers was, for all practical purposes, the acting head of
the Ahnenerbe. In this capacity he was subordinated to Himmler
and regularly reported to him on the affairs of this Society. The
top secret correspondence of Himmler concerning the Ahnenerbe
was sent to Sievers. The charter of the Ahnenerbe defines Sievers’
duties as follows:

“The Reich Business Manager handles the business affairs of
the community; he is in charge of the business organization
and administration. He is responsible for the drawing up of
the budget and for the administration of the treasury.”

Sievers was responsible for the entire administrative problems
of the secretary’s office, bookkeeping and treasury. Besides that

254

he also had to manage the Ahnenerbe publishing house. In June
1943 Professor Dr. Mentzel, who among other things was Chief
of the Business Managing Advisory Council of the Reich Re-
search Council, appointed Sievers as his deputy. By this act
Sievers did not become a member of the Reich Research Council
but held only an honorary position.

In a letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 28 January
1943, Sievers defines his position as Reich Business Manager
of the Ahnenerbe as follows:

“My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the re-
search men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reichs-
fuehrer SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On
one thing I certainly can form an opinion; that is, on who is
doing the quickest job.”

Sievers received orders directly from Himmler on matters of
research assignments for the Ahnenerbe and he reported directly
to Himmler on such experiments. Sievers devoted his efforts to
obtaining the funds, materials, and equipment needed by the re-
search workers. The materials obtained by Sievers included con-
centration camp inmates to be used as experimental subjects.
When the experiments were under way, Sievers made certain
that they were being performed in a satisfactory manner. In this
connection, Sievers necessarily exercised his own independent
judgment and had to familiarize himself with the details of such
assignments.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

The details of these experiments are discussed in other por-
tions of this judgment. Sievers’ activities in the high-altitude
experiments are revealed clearly by the evidence. Rascher, in a
letter to Himmler dated 5 April 1942, states as follows :

“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to
watch some of the interesting standard experiments and may
have given you a brief report * * * I am very much indebted to
Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very active
interest in my work in every respect.”

Sievers admitted that he reported to Himmler about his visit to
Dachau. On the basis of the reports of Sievers and Rascher,
Himmler authorized Rascher to continue the high-altitude experi-
ments in Dachau, in the course of which the evidence shows that
180 to 200 inmates were experimented upon; that 70 to 80 of
them died. Rascher became associated with the Ahnenerbe in

255

March 1942, and during the entire time covered by the period of
the high-altitude experiments, Rascher was attached to the Ahnen-
erbe and performed the high-altitude experiments with its as-
sistance. On 20 July 1942, when the final report on high-altitude
experiments was submitted to Himmler, Rascher’s name appeared
on the letterhead of the Ahnenerbe Institute for Military Scien-
tific Research as shown by the cover letter, and the inclosed report
bore the statement that the experiments had been carried out
in conjunction with the research and instruction association “Das
Ahnenerbe”. Sievers had actual knowledge of the criminal aspects
of the Rascher experiments. He was notified that Dachau inmates
were to be used. He himself inspected the experiments. Sievers
admitted that Rascher told him that several died as a result of the
high-altitude experiments.

Under these facts Sievers is specially chargeable with the
criminal aspects of these experiments.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been com-
pleted, freezing experiments were ordered to be performed at
Dachau. They were conducted from August 1942 to the early part
of 1943 by Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher, all of whom were
officers in the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Details of the
freezing experiments have been given elsewhere in this judg-
ment.

In May 1943 Rascher was transferred to the Waffen SS and
then proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments in Dachau
until May 1945. Rascher advised the defendant Rudolf Brandt
that Poles and Russians had been used as subjects.

The witness Neff testified that the defendant Sievers visited
the experimental station quite frequently during the freezing ex-
periments. He testified further that in September 1942 he re-
ceived orders to take the hearts and lungs of 5 experimental sub-
jects killed in the experiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for
further scientific study; that the travel warrant for the trip was
made out by Sievers; and that the Ahnenerbe Society paid the
expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One of the 5 experimental
subjects killed was a Dutch citizen.

Neff's testimony is corroborated in large part by the affidavits
of the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng, by the
testimony of the witnesses Lutz, Michalowsky and Vieweg, and by
the documentary evidence in the record. In the Sievers’ diary,
there are numerous instances of Sievers’ activities in the aid of
Rascher. On 1 February 1943 Sievers noted efforts in obtaining

256

apparatus, implements and chemicals for Rascher’s experiments.
On 6 and 21 January 1944 Sievers noted the problem of location.
Rascher reported to Sievers periodically concerning the status
and details of the freezing experiments.

It is plain from the record that the relationship of Sievers and
Rascher in the performance of freezing experiments required
Sievers to make the preliminary arrangements for the perform-
ance of the experiments to familiarize himself with the prog-
ress of the experiments by personal inspection, to furnish neces-
sary equipment and material, including human beings used during
the freezing experiments, to receive and make progress reports
concerning Rascher, and to handle the matter of evaluation and
publication of such reports. Basically, such activities constituted
a performance of his duties as defined by Sievers in his letter of
28 January 1943 to Rudolf Brandt, in which he stated that he
smoothed the way for research workers and saw to it that Himm-
ler’s orders were carried out.

Under these facts Sievers is chargeable with the criminal
activities in these experiments.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

Details of these experiments are given elsewhere in this judg-
ment. These experiments were performd at Dachau by Schilling
and Ploetner. The evidence shows that Sievers had knowledge of
the nature and purpose of these criminal enterprises and sup-
ported them in his official position.

LOST GAS EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were conducted in the Natzweiler concen-
tration camp under the supervision of Professor Hirt of the
University of Strasbourg. The Ahnenerbe Society and the de-
fendant Sievers supported this research on behalf of the SS.
The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies
of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. The defendant Sievers
participated in these experiments by actively collaborating with
the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt and with Hirt
and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer. The record shows that
Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least as early as
January 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler
and Hirt.

In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers wrote that
the necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out
our military scientific research work”. He requested that Gluecks
issue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kiesel-
bach to enter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their
board and accommodations. The letter also stated:

257

“The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners
are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medi-
cal barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the
building are required, in particular the installation of the hood
which can be produced with very little material. In accordance
with attached plan of the construction management at Natz-
weiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to same to
carry out the reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our
activity at Natzweiler will be covered by this office.”

In a memorandum of 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf
Brandt, Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had
arisen in Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the
camp officials. He seemed particularly outraged by the fact that
the camp officials were asking that the experimental prisoners
be paid for. A portion of the memorandum follows :

“When I think of our military research work conducted at
the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special
attention to the generous and understanding way in which our
work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given.
Payment of prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at
Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible
out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments,
as a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea,
but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that,
to the German people in a possible emergency.”

Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion
in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The de-
fendant Rudolf Brandt replied to this memorandum on 3 De-
cember 1942 and told Sievers that he had had occasion to speak
to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and that they would be
remedied.

The testimony of the witness Holl was that approximately
220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality
were experimented upon by Hirt and his collaborators, and that
approximately 50 died. None of the experimental subjects vol-
unteered. During the entire period of these experiments, Hirt was
associated with the Ahnenerbe Society.

In early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings
from the Lost experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treat-
ment of Poisoning Caused by Lost.” The report was described
as from the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Department
H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the Strasbourg Anatomical In-
stitute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due to Lost gas are

258

mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this report. On
31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer Decree
giving him broad powers in the field of chemical warfare, Sievers
informed Brandt about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the
report. This is proved by Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on
11 April 1944. Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the
report made it clear that experiments had been conducted on
human beings.

Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler
concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities con-
cerning the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments.
These arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and
experimental subjects. Sievers testified that the Lost experi-
ments were harmful. On the visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers
saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments
and watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons.
Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt whether any
of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the experi-
ments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental sub-
jects had died due to other causes.

It is evident that Sievers was criminally connected with these
experiments.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were conducted at Dachau from July through
September 1944. Details of these experiments are explained else-
where in the judgment.

The function of the Ahnenerbe in the performance of sea-
water experiments conducted at Dachau from July through Sep-
tember 1944 was chiefly in connection with the furnishing of
space and equipment for the experiments. Sievers made these
necessary arrangements on behalf of the Ahnenerbe. As a result
of Schroeder’s request to Himmler through Grawitz for permis-
sion to perform the sea-water experiments on inmates in Dachau,
Himmler directed on 8 July 1944 that the experiments be made
on gypsies and three other persons with other racial qualities
as control subjects. Sievers was advised by Himmler’s office of
the above authorization for experiments at the Rascher station
at Dachau.

On 27 June 1944, Rascher was replaced by Ploetner as head
of the Ahnenerbe Institute for Military Scientific Research at
Dachau. Sievers, on 20 July, went to Dachau and conferred with
Ploetner of the Ahnenerbe Institute and the defendant Beiglboeck,
who was to perform the experiments, concerning the execution
of the sea-water experiments and the availability of working

259

space for them. Sievers agreed to supply working space in
Ploetner's department and at the Ahnenerbe Entomological In-
stitute.

On 26 July 1944, Sievers made a written report to Grawitz
concerning details of his conference at Dachau. Sievers wrote
that 40 experimental persons could be accommodated at “our”
research station, that the Ahnenerbe would supply a laboratory,
and that Dr. Ploetner would give his assistance, help, and advice
to the Luftwaffe physicians performing the experiments. Sievers
also stated the number and assignment of the personnel to be
employed, estimating that the work would cover a period of three
weeks and designated 23 July 1944 as the date of commencement,
provided that experimental persons were available and the camp
commander had received the necessary order from Himmler.
In conclusion, Sievers expressed his hope that the arrangements
which he had made would permit a successful conduct of the
experiments and requested that acknowledgment be made to
Himmler as a participant in the experiments.

In his testimony Sievers admitted that he had written the
above letter and had conferred with Beiglboeck at Dachau. As
the letter indicates, Sievers knew that concentration camp in-
mates were to be used.

Sievers had knowledge of and criminally participated in sea-
water experiments.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Detailed description of these experiments is contained else-
where in this judgment. Sievers participated in the criminal
typhus experiments conducted by Haagen on concentration camp
inmates at Natzweiler by making the necessary arrangements in
connection with securing experimental subjects, handling admin-
istrative problems incident to the experiments, and by furnish-
ing the Ahnenerbe station with its equipment in Natzweiler for
their performance.

On 16 August 1943, when Haagen was preparing to transfer
his typhus experiments from Schirmeck to Natzweiler, he re-
quested Sievers to make available a hundred concentration camp
inmates for his research. This is seen from a letter of 30 Sep-
tember 1943 from Sievers to Haagen in which he states that he
will be glad to assist, and that he is accordingly contacting the
proper source to have the “desired personnel” placed at Haagen’s
disposal. As a result of Sievers’ efforts, a hundred inmates were
shipped from Auschwitz to Natzweiler for Haagen’s experiments.
These were found to be unfit for experimentation because of their
pitiful physical condition. A second group of one hundred was

260

then made available. Some of these were used by Haagen as
experimental subjects.

That the experiments were carried out in the Ahnenerbe ex-
perimental station in Natzweiler is proved by excerpts from
monthly reports of the camp doctor in Natzweiler. A number of
deaths occurred among non-German experimental subjects as a
direct result of the treatment to which they were subjected.

POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS

Evidence has been introduced during the course of the trial
to show that experiments to test the efficacy of a blood coagulant
“polygal” were conducted on Dachau inmates by Rascher. The
Sievers’ diary shows that the defendant had knowledge of ac-
tivities concerning the production of polygal, and that he lent
his support to the conduct of the experiments.

JEWISH SKELETON COLLECTION

Sievers is charged under the indictment with participation in
the killing of 112 Jews who were selected to complete a skeleton
collection for the Reich University of Strasbourg.

Responding to a request by the defendant Rudolf Brandt,
Sievers submitted to him on 9 February 1942 a report by Dr.
Hirt of the University of Strasbourg on the desirability of secur-
ing a Jewish skeleton collection. In this report, Hirt advocated
outright murder of “Jewish Bolshevik Commissars” for the pro-
curement of such a collection. On 27 February 1942, Rudolf
Brandt informed Sievers that Himmler would support Hirt’s work
and would place everything necessary at his disposal. Brandt
asked Sievers to inform Hirt accordingly and to report again on
the subject. On 2 November 1942 Sievers requested Brandt to
make the necessary arrangements with the Reich Main Security
Office for providing 150 Jewish inmates from Auschwitz to carry
out this plan. On 6 November, Brandt informed Adolf Eichmann,
the Chief of Office IV B/4 (Jewish Affairs) of the Reich Main
Security Office to put everything at Hirt’s disposal which was
necessary for the completion of the skeleton collection.

From Sievers’ letter to Eichmann of 21 June 1943, it is ap-
parent that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger, a collaborator of the
Ahnenerbe Society, carried out the preliminary work for the as-
sembling of the skeleton collection in the Auschwitz concentra-
tion camp on 79 Jews, 30 Jewesses, 2 Poles, and 4 Asiatics. The
corpses of the victims were sent in three shipments to the
Anatomical Institute of Hirt in the Strasbourg University.

When the Allied Armies were threatening to overrun Stras-

261

bourg early in September 1944, Sievers dispatched to Rudolf
Brandt the following teletype message:

“Subject: Collection of Jewish Skeletons.

“In conformity with the proposal of 9 February 1942 and
with the consent of 23 February 1942 * * * SS Sturmbann-
fuehrer Professor Hirt planned the hitherto missing collection
of skeletons. Due to the extent of the scientific work con-
nected herewith, the preparation of the skeletons is not yet
concluded. Hirt asks with respect to the time needed for 80
specimens, and in case the endangering of Strasbourg has to
be reckoned with, how to proceed with the collection situated
in the dissecting room of the anatomical institute. He is able
to carry out the maceration and thus render them irrecogniza-
ble. Then, however, part of the entire work would have been
partly done in vain, and it would be a great scientific loss for
this unique collection, because hominit casts could not be made
afterwards. The skeleton collection as such is not conspicuous.
Viscera could be declared as remnants of corpses, apparently
left in the anatomical institute by the French and ordered to
be cremated. Decision on the following proposals is requested:

“1. Collection can be preserved.

“2. Collection is to be partly dissolved.

“3. Entire collection is to be dissolved.

“Sievers”

The pictures of the corpses and the dissecting rooms of the
Institute, taken by the French authorities after the liberation of
Strasbourg, point up the grim story of these deliberate murders
to which Sievers was a party.

Sievers knew from the first moment he received Hirt’s report
of 9 February 1942 that mass murder was planned for the pro-
curement of the skeleton collection. Nevertheless he actively
collaborated in the project, sent an employee of the Ahnenerbe
to make the preparatory selections in the concentration camp
at Auschwitz, and provided for the transfer of the victims from
Auschwitz to Natzweiler. He made arrangements that the col-
lection be destroyed.

Sieved guilt under this specification is shown without ques-
tion.

Sievers offers two purported defenses to the charges against
him (1) that he acted pursuant to superior orders; (2) that he
was a member of a resistance movement.

The first defense is wholly without merit. There is nothing
to show that in the commission of these ghastly crimes, Sievers

262

acted entirely pursuant to orders. True, the basic policies or proj-
ects which he carried through were decided upon by his superiors,
but in the execution of the details Sievers had an unlimited
power of discretion. The defendant says that in his position he
could not have refused an assignment. The fact remains that the
record shows the case of several men who did, and who have
lived to tell about it.

Sievers’ second matter of defense is equally untenable. In sup-
port of the defense, Sievers offered evidence by which he hoped
to prove that as early as 1933 he became a member of a secret
resistance movement which plotted to overthrow the Nazi Gov-
ernment and to assassinate Hitler and Himmler ; that as a leading
member of the group, Sievers obtained the appointment as
Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe so that he could be
close to Himmler and observe his movements; that in this posi-
tion he became enmeshed in the revolting crimes, the subject
matter of this indictment; that he remained as business manager
upon advice of his resistance leader to gain vital information
which would hasten the day of the overthrow of the Nazi Gov-
ernment and the liberation of the helpless peoples coming under
its domination.

Assuming all these things to be true, we cannot see how they
may be used as a defense for Sievers. The fact remains that
murders were committed with cooperation of the Ahnenerbe
upon countless thousands of wretched concentration camp in-
mates who had not the slightest means of resistance. Sievers
directed the program by which these murders were committed.

It certainly is not the law that a resistance worker can commit
no crime, and least of all, against the very people he is supposed
to be protecting.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment, Wolfram Sievers is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by
the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the
SS. The evidence shows that Wolfram Sievers became a member
of the SS in 1935 and remained a member of that organization
to the end of the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally
implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against
humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indict-
ment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wolfram
Sievers guilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

263

ROSE

The defendant Rose is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for, and participation
in Typhus and Epidemic Jaundice Experiments.

The latter charge has been abandoned by the prosecution.

Evidence was offered concerning Rose's criminal participation
in malaria experiments at Dachau, although he was not named
in the indictment as one of the defendants particularly charged
with criminal responsibility in connection with malaria experi-
ments. Questions presented by this situation will be discussed
later.

The defendant Rose is a physician of large experience, for
many years recognized as an expert in tropical diseases. He
studied medicine at the Universities of Berlin and Breslau and was
admitted to practice in the fall of 1921. After serving as interne
in several medical institutes, he received an appointment on the
staff of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. Later he served
on the staff of Heidelberg University and for three years en-
gaged in the private practice of medicine in Heidelberg. In 1929
he went to China, where he remained until 1936, occupying
important positions as medical adviser to the Chinese Govern-
ment. In 1936 he returned to Germany and became head of the
Department for Tropical Medicine at the Robert Koch Institute
in Berlin. Late in August 1939 he joined the Luftwaffe with the
rank of first lieutenant in the Medical Corps. In that service he
was commissioned brigadier general in the reserve and contin-
ued on active duty until the end of the war. He was consultant
on hygiene and tropical medicine to the Chief of the Medical
Service of the Luftwaffe. From 1944 he was also consultant on
the staff of defendant Handloser and was medical adviser to
Dr. Conti in matters pertaining to tropical diseases. During the
war Rose devoted practically all of his time to his duties as con-
sultant to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe,
Hippke, and after 1 January 1944, the defendant Schroeder.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

Medical experiments in connection with malaria were carried
on at Dachau concentration camp from February 1942 until the
end of the war. These experiments were conducted under Dr.
Klaus Schilling for the purpose of discovering a method of estab-
lishing immunity against malaria. During the course of the
experiments probably as many as 1,000 inmates of the concen-
tration camp were used as subjects of the experiments. Very
many of these persons were nationals of countries other than

264

Germany who did not volunteer for the experiments. By cred-
ible evidence it is established that approximately 30 of the
experimental subjects died as a direct result of the experiments
and that many more succumbed from causes directly following
the experiments, including non-German nationals.

With reference to Rose’s participation in these experiments,
the record shows the following: The defendant Rose had been
acquainted with Schilling for a number of years, having been his
successor in a position once held by Schilling in the Robert Koch
Institute. Under date 3 February 1941, Rose, writing to Schilling,
then in Italy, referred to a letter received from Schilling, in
which the latter requested “malaria spleens” (spleens taken from
the bodies of persons who had died from malaria). Rose in reply
asked for information concerning the exact nature of the material
desired. Schilling wrote 4 April 1942 from Dachau to Rose at
Berlin, stating that he had inoculated a person intracutaneously
with sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles
which Rose had sent him. The letter continues:

“For the second inoculation I miss the sporocoides material
because I do not possess the ‘Strain Rose’ in the anopheles yet.
If you could find it possible to send me in the next days a few
anopheles infected with ‘Strain Rose’ (with the last consign-
ment two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have
the possibility to continue this experiment and I would nat-
urally be very thankful to you for this new support of my
work.

“The mosquito breeding and the experiments proceed satis-
factorily and I am working now on six tertiary strains.”

The letter bears the handwritten endorsement “finished 17 April

1942. L. g. RO 17/4,” which evidence clearly reveals that Rose
had complied with Schilling’s request for material.

Schilling again wrote Rose from Dachau malaria station 5 July

1943, thanking Rose for his letter and “the consignment of
atroparvus eggs.” The letter continues:

“Five percent of them brought on water went down and
were therefore unfit for development ; the rest of them hatched
almost 100 percent.

“Thanks to your solicitude, achieved again the completion
of my breed.

“Despite this fact I accept with great pleasure your offer to
send me your excess of eggs. How did you dispatch this con-
signment? The result could not have been any better!

“Please tell Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of

265

her breed with greater skill and better success than the pris-
oner August, my best thanks for her trouble.

“Again my sincere thanks to you!”

The “prisoner August” mentioned in the letter was doubtless
the witness August Vieweg, who testified before this Tribunal
concerning the malaria experiments.

Rose wrote Schilling 27 July 1943 in answer to the latter’s
letter of 5 July 1943, stating he was glad the shipment of eggs
had arrived in good order and had proved useful. He also gave
the information that another shipment of anopheles eggs would
follow.

In the fall of 1942 Rose was present at the “Cold Conference”
held at Nuernberg and heard Holzloehner deliver his lecture on
the freezing experiments which had taken place at Dachau. Rose
testified that after the conference he talked with Holzloehner,
who told him that the carrying out of physiological experiments
on human beings imposed upon him a tremendous mental burden,
adding that he hoped he never would receive another order to
conduct such experiments.

It is impossible to believe that during the years 1942 and
1943 Rose was unaware of malaria experiments on human beings
which were progressing at Dachau under Schilling, or to credit
Rose with innocence of knowledge that the malaria research
was not confined solely to vaccinations designed for the purpose
of immunizing the persons vaccinated. On the contrary, it is clear
that Rose well knew that human beings were being used in the
concentration camp as subjects for medical experimentation.

However, no adjudication either of guilt or innocence will be
entered against Rose for criminal participation in these experi-
ments for the following reason: In preparing counts two and
three of its indictment the prosecution elected to frame its
pleading in such a manner as to charge all defendants with the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, gen-
erally, and at the same time to name in each sub-paragraph
dealing with medical experiments only those defendants particu-
larly charged with responsibility for each particular item.

In our view this constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and
was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they
were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that only
such persons as were actually named in the designated experi-
ments would be called upon to defend against the specific items.
Included in the list of names of those defendants specifically
charged with responsibility for the malaria experiments the name
of Rose does not appear. We think it would be manifestly unfair

to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense with which the
indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.

This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecu-
tion was inadmissible against the charges actually preferred
against Rose. We think it had probative value as proof of the
fact of Rose’s knowledge of human experimentation upon con-
centration camp inmates.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were carried out at Buchenwald and Natz-
weiler concentration camps, over a period extending from 1942
to 1945, in an attempt to procure a protective typhus vaccine.

In the experimental block at Buchenwald, with Dr. Ding in
charge, inmates of the camp were infected with typhus for the
purpose of procuring a continuing supply of fresh blood taken
from persons suffering from typhus. Other inmates, some pre-
viously immunized and some not, were infected with typhus to
demonstrate the efficacy of the vaccines. Full particulars of these
experiments have been given elsewhere in the judgment.

Rose visited Buchenwald in company with Gildemeister of the
Robert Koch Institute in the spring of 1942. At this time Dr.
Ding was absent, suffering from typhus as the result of an acci-
dental infection received while infecting his experimental sub-
jects. Rose inspected the experimental block where he saw many
persons suffering from typhus. He passed through the wards and
looked at the clinical records “of * * * persons with severe cases in
the control cases and * * * lighter cases among those vaccinated.”
The Ding diary, under dates 19 August-4 September 1942,
referring to use of vaccines for immunization, states that 20
persons were inoculated with vaccine from Bucharest, with a
note “this vaccine was made available by Professor Rose, who re-
ceived it from Navy Doctor Professor Ruegge from Bucharest.”
Rose denied that he had ever sent vaccine to Mrugowsky or Ding
for use at Buchenwald. Mrugowsky, from Berlin, under date 16
May 1942, wrote Rose as follows:

“Dear Professor:

“The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the
execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I there-
fore ask you to let me have the vaccines.

“The other question which you raised, as to whether the
louse can be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient, will also
be dealt with. In principle, this also has been approved. There
are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the

841584 — 49—18

267

practical execution, since we have at present no facilities for
breeding lice.

“Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the
personnel department of the SS medical office. It will be given
consideration in due course/’

From a note on the letter, it appears that Rose was absent from
Berlin and was not expected to return until June. The letter,
however, refers to previous contact with Rose and to some sug-
gestions made by him which evidently concern medical experi-
ments on human beings. Rose in effect admitted that he had
forwarded the Bucharest vaccine to be tested at Buchenwald.

At a meeting of consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht held
in May 1943, Ding made a report in which he described the typhus
experiments he had been performing at Buchenwald. Rose heard
the report at the meeting and then and there objected strongly
to the methods used by Ding in conducting the experiments.
As may well be imagined, this protest created considerable dis-
cussion among those present.

The Ding diary shows that, subsequent to this meeting, experi-
ments were conducted at Buchenwald at the instigation of the
defendant Rose. The entry under date of 8 March 1944, which
refers to “typhus vaccine experimental series VIII”, appears as
follows :

“Suggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Professor
Rose (Oberstarzt), the vaccine ‘Kopenhagen’ (Ipsen-Murine-
vaccine) produced from mouse liver by the National Serum
Institute in Copenhagen was tested for its compatibility on
humans. 20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by in-
tramuscular injection * * * . 10 persons were contemplated for
control and comparison. 4 of the 30 persons were eliminated
before the start of the artificial injection because of inter-
mittent sickness * * * . The remaining experimental persons
were infected on 16 April 44 by subcutaneous injection of
1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood * * * . The following fell sick :
17 persons immunized: 9 medium, 8 seriously; 9 persons con-
trol: 2 medium, 7 seriously * * * . 2 June 44: The experimental
series was concluded 13 June 44: Chart and case history com-
pleted and sent to Berlin. 6 deaths (3 Copenhagen) (3 control) .
Dr. Ding.”

When on the witness stand Rose vigorously challenged the
correctness of this entry in the Ding diary and flatly denied that
he had sent a Copenhagen vaccine to Mrugowsky or Ding for use
at Buchenwald. The prosecution met this challenge by offering

268

in evidence a letter from Rose to Mrugowsky dated 2 December
1943, in which Rose stated that he had at his disposal a number
of samples of a new murine virus typhus vaccine prepared from
mice livers, which in animal experiments had been much more
effective than the vaccine prepared from the lungs of mice.
The letter continued:

“To decide whether this first-rate murine vaccine should be
used for protective vaccination of human beings against lice
typhus, it would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed
in your and Ding’s experimental arrangement at Buchenwald
an effect similar to that of the classic virus vaccines.

“Would you be able to have such an experimental series
carried out? Unfortunately I could not reach you over the
phone. Considering the slowness of postal communications I
would be grateful for an answer by telephone * *

The letter shows on its face that it was forwarded by Mrugowsky
to Ding, who noted its receipt by him 21 February 1944.

On cross-examination, when Rose was confronted with the
letter he admitted its authorship, and that he had asked that
experiments be carried out by Mrugowsky and Ding at Buchen-
wald.

The fact that Rose contributed actively and materially to the
Mrugowsky-Ding experiments at Buchenwald clearly appears
from the evidence.

The evidence also shows that Rose actively collaborated in
the typhus experiments carried out by Haagen at the Natzweiler
concentration camp for the benefit of the Luftwaffe.

From the exhibits in the record, it appears that Rose and
Haagen corresponded during the month of June 1943 concerning
the production of a vaccine for typhus. Under date 5 June 1943
Haagen wrote to Rose amplifying a telephone conversation be-
tween the two and referring to a letter from a certain Giroud
with reference to a vaccine which had been used on rabbits. A
few days later Rose replied, thanking him for his letters of 4
and 5 June and for “the prompt execution of my request.” The
record makes it plain that by use of the phrase “the prompt
execution of my request” was meant a request made by Rose to
the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht for an order
to produce typhus vaccine to be used by the armed forces in the
eastern area.

Under date 4 October 1943 Haagen again wrote Rose concern-
ing his plans for vaccine production, making reference in the
letter to a report made by Rose on the Ipsen vaccine. Haagen
stated that he had already reported to Rose on the results of

269

experiments with human beings and expressed his regret that,
up to the date of the letter, he had been unable to “perform
infection experiments on the vaccinated persons.” He also stated
that he had requested the Ahnenerbe to provide suitable persons
for vaccination but had received no answer; that he was then
vaccinating other human beings and would report results later.
He concluded by expressing the wish and need for experimental
subjects upon whom to test vaccinations, and suggested that
when subjects were procured, parallel tests should be made
between the vaccine referred to in the letter and the Ipsen tests.

We think the only reasonable inference which can be drawn
from this letter is that Haagen was proposing to test the efficacy
of the vaccinations which he had completed, which could only be
accomplished by infecting the vaccinated subjects with a viru-
lent pathogenic virus.

In a letter written by Rose and dated “in the field, 29 Septem-
ber 1943”, directed to the Behring Works at Marburg/Lahn,
Rose states that he is enclosing a memorandum regarding reports
by Dr. Ipsen on his experience in the production of typhus vac-
cine. Copy of the report which Rose enclosed is in evidence, Rose
stating therein that he had proposed, and Ipsen had promised,
that a number of Ipsen’s liver vaccine samples should be sent to
Rose with the object of testing its protective efficacy on human
beings whose lives were in special danger. Copies of this report
were forwarded by Rose to several institutions, including that
presided over by Haagen.

In November 1943, 100 prisoners were transported to Natz-
weiler, of whom 18 had died during the journey. The remainder
were in such poor health that Haagen found them worthless for
his experiments and requested additional healthy prisoners
through Dr. Hirt, who was a member of the Ahnenerbe.

Rose wrote to Haagen 13 December 1943, saying among other
things “I request that in procuring persons for vaccination in
your experiment, you request a corresponding number of persons
for vaccination with Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage,
as also appeared in the Buchenwald experiments, that the test
of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their
value than the test of one vaccine alone.”

There is much other evidence connecting Rose with the series
of experiments conducted by Haagen but we shall not burden
the judgment further. It will be sufficient to say that the evidence
proves conclusively that Rose was directly connected with the
criminal experiments conducted by Haagen.

Doubtless at the outset of the experimental program launched
in the concentration camps, Rose may have voiced some vigorous

270

opposition. In the end, however, he overcame what scruples he
had and knowingly took an active and consenting part in the pro-
gram. He attempts to justify his actions on the ground that a
state may validly order experiments to be carried out on persons
condemned to death without regard to the fact that such persons
may refuse to consent to submit themselves as experimental sub-
jects. This defense entirely misses the point of the dominant
issue. As we have pointed out in the case of Gebhardt, whatever
may be the condition of the law with reference to medical experi-
ments conducted by or through a state upon its own citizens, such
a thing will not be sanctioned in international law when prac-
ticed upon citizens or subjects of an occupied territory.

We have indulged every presumption in favor of the defend-
ant, but his position lacks substance in the face of the overwhelm-
ing evidence against him. His own consciousness of turpitude is
clearly disclosed by the statement made by him at the close of a
vigorous cross-examination in the following language:

“It was known to me that such experiments had earlier
been carried out, although I basically objected to these ex-
periments. This institution had been set up in Germany and
was approved by the state and covered by the state. At that
moment I was in a position which perhaps corresponds to a
lawyer who is, perhaps, a basic opponent of execution or death
sentence. On occasion when he is dealing with leading members
of the government, or with lawyers during public congresses
or meetings, he will do everything in his power to maintain
his opinion on the subject and have it put into effect. If, how-
ever, he does not succeed, he stays in his profession and in
his environment in spite of this. Under circumstances he may
perhaps even be forced to pronounce such a death sentence
himself, although he is basically an opponent of that set-up.”

The Tribunal finds that the defendant Rose was a principal
in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and
was connected with plans and enterprises involving medical ex-
periments on non-German nationals without their consent, in the
course of which murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atroci-
ties, and other inhuman acts were committed. To the extent that
these crimes were not war crimes they were crimes against hu-
manity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Gerhard
Rose guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

271

RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ

The defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz are charged under
counts two and three of the indictment with special responsibility
for, and participation in, High-Altitude Experiments.

The defendant Weltz is also charged under counts two and
three with special responsibility for, and participation in, Freez-
ing Experiments.

To the extent that the evidence in the record relates to the
high-altitude experiments, the cases of the three defendants will
be considered together.

Defendant Ruff specialized in the field of aviation medicine
from the completion of his medical education at Berlin and Bonn
in 1932. In January 1934 he was assigned to the German Experi-
mental Institute for Aviation, a civilian agency, in order to estab-
lish a department for aviation medicine. Later he became chief
of the department.

Defendant Romberg joined the NSDAP in May 1933. From
April 1936 until 1938 he interned as an assistant physician at a
Berlin hospital. On 1 January 1938 he joined the staff of the
German Experimental Institution for Aviation as an associate
assistant to the defendant Ruff. He remained as a subordinate
to Ruff until the end of the warr

Defendant Weltz for many years was a specialist in X-ray
work. In the year 1935 he received an assignment as lecturer
in the field of aviation medicine at the University of Munich.
At the same time he instituted a small experimental department
at the Physiological Institute of the University of Munich. Weltz
lectured at the University until 1945; at the same time he did
research work at the Institute.

In the summer of 1941 the experimental department at the
Physiological Institute, University of Munich, was taken over by
the Luftwaffe and renamed the “Institute for Aviation Medicine
in Munich.” Weltz was commissioned director of this Institute
by Hippke, then Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luft-
waffe. In his capacity as director of this Institute, Weltz was
subordinated to Luftgau No. VII in Munich for disciplinary pur-
poses. In scientific matters he was subordinated directly to An-
thony, Chief of the Department for Aviation Medicine in the
Office of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experi-
ments involving the effect of low air pressure on living human

272

beings were conducted at Dachau from the latter part of Febru-
ary through May 1942. In some of these experiments great num-
bers of human subjects were killed under the most brutal and
senseless conditions. A certain Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Luft-
waffe officer, was the prime mover in the experiments which re-
sulted in the deaths of the subjects. The prosecution maintains
that Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz were criminally implicated in
these experiments.

The guilt of the defendant Weltz is said to arise by reason
of the fact that, according to the prosecution’s theory, Weltz,
as the dominant figure proposed the experiments, arranged for
their conduct at Dachau, and brought the parties Ruff, Romberg,
and Rascher together. The guilt of Ruff and Romberg is charged
by reason of the fact that they are said to have collaborated
with Rascher in the conduct of the experiments. The evidence
on the details of the matter appears to be as follows:

In the late summer of 1941 soon after the Institute Weltz
at Munich was taken over by the Luftwaffe, Hippke, Chief of
the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, approved, in principle, a
research assignment for Weltz in connection with the problem
of rescue of aviators at high altitudes. This required the use
of human experimental subjects. Weltz endeavored to secure vol-
unteer subjects for the research from various sources; however,
he was unsuccessful in his efforts.

Rascher, one of Himmler’s minor satellites, was at the time
an assistant at the Institute. He, Rascher, suggested the pos-
sibility of securing Himmler’s consent to conducting the experi-
ments at Dachau. Weltz seized upon the suggestion, and there-
after arrangements to that end were completed, Himmler giving
his consent for experiments to be conducted on concentration
camp inmates condemned to death, but only upon express con-
dition that Rascher be included as one of the collaborators in the
research.

Rascher was not an expert in aviation medicine. Ruff was the
leading German scientist in this field, and Romberg was his prin-
cipal assistant. Weltz felt that before he could proceed with his
research these men should be persuaded to come into the under-
taking. He visited Ruff in Berlin and explained the proposition.
Thereafter Ruff and Romberg came to Munich, where a conference
was held with Weltz and Rascher to discuss the technical nature
of the proposed experiments.

According to the testimony of Weltz, Ruff, and Romberg, the
basic consideration which impelled them to agree to the use of
concentration camp inmates as subjects was the fact that the
inmates were to be criminals condemned to death who were to

273

receive some form of clemency in the event they survived the
experiments. Rascher, who was active in the conference, as-
sured the defendants that this also was one of the conditions
under which Himmler had authorized the use of camp inmates
as experimental subjects.

The decisions reached at the conference were then made known
to Hippke, who gave his approval to the institution of experiments
at Dachau and issued an order that a mobile low-pressure cham-
ber which was then in the possession of Ruff at the Department
for Aviation Medicine, Berlin, should be transferred to Dachau
for use in the project.

A second meeting was held at Dachau, attended by Ruff, Rom-
berg, Weltz, Rascher, and the camp commander, to make the
necessary arrangements for the conduct of the experiments. The
mobile low-pressure chamber was then brought to Dachau, and on
22 February 1942 the first series of experiments was instituted.

Weltz was Rascher’s superior; Romberg was subordinate to
Ruff. Rascher and Romberg were in personal charge of the con-
duct of the experiments. There is no evidence to show that
Weltz was ever present at any of these experiments. Ruff visited
Dachau one day during the early part of the experiments, but
thereafter remained in Berlin and received information concerning
the progress of the experiments only through his subordinate,
Romberg.

There is evidence from which it may reasonably be found that
at the outset of the program personal friction developed between
Weltz and his subordinate Rascher. The testimony of Weltz is
that on several occasions he asked Rascher for reports on the
progress of the experiments and each time Rascher told Weltz
that nothing had been started with reference to the research.
Finally Weltz ordered Rascher to make a report; whereupon
Rascher showed his superior a telegram from Himmler which
stated, in substance, that the experiments to be conducted by
Rascher were to be treated as top secret matter and that reports
were to be given to none other than Himmler. Because of this
situation Weltz had Rascher transferred out of his command to
the DVL branch at Dachau. Defendant Romberg stated that these
experiments had been stopped soon after their inception by the
adjutant of the Reich War Ministry, because of friction between
Weltz and Rascher, and that the experiments were resumed only
after Rascher had been transferred out of Weltz Institute.

While the evidence is convincingly plain that Weltz participated
in the initial arrangements for the experiments and brought all
parties together, it is not so clear that illegal experiments were
planned or carried out while Rascher was under Weltz command,

274

or that he knew that experiments which Rascher might conduct
in the future would be illegal and criminal.

There appear to have been two distinct groups of prisoners
used in the experimental series. One was a group of 10 to 15 in-
mates known in the camp as “exhibition patients” or “permanent
experimental subjects”. Most, if not all, of these were German
nationals who were confined in the camp as criminal prisoners.
These men were housed together and were well-fed and reason-
ably contented. None of them suffered death or injury as a result
of the experiments. The other group consisted of 150 to 200 sub-
jects picked at random from the camp and used in the experiments
without their permission. Some 70 or 80 of these were killed dur-
ing the course of the experiments.

The defendants Ruff and Romberg maintain that two separate
and distinct experimental series were carried on at Dachau ; one
conducted by them with the use of the “exhibition subjects”,
relating to the problems of rescue at high altitudes, in which no
injuries occurred; the other conducted by Rascher on the large
group of nonvolunteers picked from the camp at random, to test
the limits of human endurance at extremely high altitudes, in
which experimental subjects in large numbers were killed.

The prosecution submits that no such fine distinction may be
drawn between the experiments said to have been conducted by
Ruff and Romberg, on the one hand, and Rascher on the other,
or in the prisoners who were used as the subjects of these ex-
periments ; that Romberg — and Ruff as his superior — share equal
guilt with Rascher for all experiments in which deaths to the
human subjects resulted.

In support of this submission the members of the prosecution
cite the fact that Rascher was always present when Romberg was
engaged in work at the altitude chamber; that on at least three
occasions Romberg was at the chamber when deaths occurred
to the so-called Rascher subjects, yet elected to continue the ex-
periments. They point likewise to the fact that, in a secret pre-
liminary report made by Rascher to Himmler which tells of deaths,
Rascher mentions the name of Romberg as being a collaborator
in the research. Finally they point to the fact that, after the ex-
periments were concluded, Romberg was recommended by Rascher
and Sievers for the War Merit Cross, because of the work done
by him at Dachau.

The issue on the question of the guilt or innocence of these
defendants is close; we would be less than fair were we not to
concede this fact. It cannot be denied that there is much in the
record to create at least a grave suspicion that the defendants
Ruff and Romberg were implicated in criminal experiments at

275

Dachau. However, virtually all of the evidence which points in
this direction is circumstantial in its nature. On the other hand,
it cannot be gainsaid that there is a certain consistency, a cer-
tain logic, in the story told by the defendants. And some of the
story is corroborated in significant particulars by evidence offered
by the prosecution.

The value of circumstantial evidence depends upon the con-
clusive nature and tendency of the circumstances relied on to
establish any controverted fact. The circumstances must not only
be consistent with guilt, but they must be inconsistent with in-
nocence. Such evidence is insufficient when, assuming all to be
true which the evidence tends to prove, some other reasonable
hypothesis of innocence may still be true; for it is the actual
exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt
which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof. There-
fore, before a court will be warranted in finding a defendant
guilty on circumstantial evidence alone, the evidence must show
such a well-connected and unbroken chain of circumstances as to
exclude all other reasonable hypotheses but that of the guilt of
the defendant. What circumstances can amount to proof can never
be a matter of general definition. In the final analysis the legal
test is whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy beyond a
reasonable doubt the understanding and conscience of those who,
under their solemn oaths as officers, must assume the responsi-
bility for finding the facts.

On this particular specification, it is the conviction of the
Tribunal that the defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz must be
found not guilty.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

In addition to the high-altitude experiments, the defendant
Weltz is charged with freezing experiments, likewise conducted
at Dachau for the benefit of the German Luftwaffe. These began
at the camp at the conclusion of the high-altitude experiments
and were performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of
whom were officers in the medical services of the Luftwaffe. Non-
German nationals were killed in these experiments.

We think it quite probable that Weltz had knowledge of these
experiments, but the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he
participated in them.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Sieg-
fried Ruff is not guilty under either counts two or three of the

276

indictment, and directs that he be released from custody under
the indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns; and

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Hans
Wolfgang Romberg is not guilty under either counts two or three
of the indictment, and directs that he be released from custody
under the indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns ; and

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Georg
August Weltz is not guilty under either counts two or three of
the indictment ; and directs that he be released from custody under
the indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns.

BRACK

The defendant Brack is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with personal responsibility for, and participa-
tion in, Sterilization Experiments and the Euthanasia Program
of the German Reich. Under count four the defendant is charged
with membership in an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

The defendant Brack enlisted in an artillery unit of an SA
regiment in 1923, and became a member of the NSDAP and the
SS in 1929. Throughout his career in the Party he was quite
active in high official circles. He entered upon full-time service
in the Braune Haus, the Nazi headquarters at Munich, in the
summer of 1932. The following year he was appointed to the Staff
of Bouhler, business manager of the NSDAP in Munich. When in
1934 Bouhler became Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of
the NSDAP, Brack was transferred from the Braune Haus to
Bouhler’s Berlin office. In 1936 Brack was placed in charge of
office 2 (Amt 2) in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer in Berlin, that
office being charged with the examinations of complaints received
by the Fuehrer from all parts of Germany. Later, he became
Bouhler’s deputy in office 2. As such he frequently journeyed to
the different Gaue for the purpose of gaining first-hand informa-
tion concerning matters in which Bouhler was interested.

Brack was promoted to the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer in the
SS in 1935, and in April 1936 to the rank of Obersturmbann-
fuehrer. The following September he became a Standartenfuehrer
in the SS, and was transferred to the staff of the Main Office of
the SS in November. In November 1940 he was promoted to the
grade of Oberfuehrer.

In 1942 Brack joined the Waffen SS, and during the late sum-
mer of that year was ordered to active duty with a Waffen SS
division. He apparently remained on active duty until the close
of the war.

277

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

The persecution of the Jews had become a fixed Nazi policy
very soon after the outbreak of World War II. By 1941 that
persecution had reached the stage of the extermination of Jews,
both in Germany and in the occupied territories. This fact is
confirmed by Brack himself, who testified that he had been told by
Himmler that he, Himmler, had received a personal order to that
effect from Hitler.

The record shows that the agencies organized for the so-called
euthanasia of incurables were used for this bloody pogrom. Later,
because of the urgent need for laborers in Germany, it was de-
cided not to kill Jews who were able to work but, as an alterna-
tive, to sterilize them.

With this end in view Himmler instructed Brack to inquire of
physicians who were engaged in the Euthanasia Program about
the possibility of a method of sterilizing persons without the
victim’s knowledge. Brack worked on the assignment, with the
result that in March 1941 he forwarded to Himmler his signed
report on the results of experiments concerning the sterilization
of human beings by means of X-rays. In the report a method
was suggested by which sterilization with X-ray could be effected
on groups of persons without their being aware of the operation.
On 23 June 1942 Brack wrote the following letter to Himmler:

“Dear Reichsf uehrer :

“* * * Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe, there are, I
figure, at least 2-3 millions of men and women who are fit
enough to work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the
labor problem presents us with I hold the view that those 2-3
millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can
however only be done if at the same time they are rendered
incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that
agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for
this purpose. I would like to recall these facts once more. Sterili-
zation, as normally performed on persons with hereditary
diseases is here out of the question, because it takes too long
and is too expensive. Castration by X-ray however is not only
relatively cheap, but can also be performed on many thousands
in the shortest time. I think, that at this time it is already
irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of
having been castrated after some weeks or months, once they
feel the effects.

“Should you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the
interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler
would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel

278

needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me
to inform you that then I would have to order the apparatus so
urgently needed with the greatest speed.

“Heil Hitler!

“Yours

“Viktor Brack.”

Brack testified from the witness stand that at the time he wrote
this letter he had every confidence that Germany would win the
war.

Brack’s letter was answered by Himmler on 11 August 1942.
In the reply Himmler directed that sterilization by means of
X-rays be tried in at least one concentration camp in a series of
experiments, and that Brack place at his disposal expert physicians
to conduct the operation.

Blankenburg, Brack’s deputy, replied to Himmler’s letter and
stated that Brack had been transferred to an SS division, but
that he, Blankenburg, as Brack’s permanent deputy would “im-
mediately take the necessary measures and get in touch with the
chiefs of the main offices of the concentration camps.”

A Polish Jew testified before the Tribunal that while confined
in Auschwitz concentration camp he was marched to Birkenau
and forcibly subjected to severe X-ray exposure and was castrated
later in order that the effects of the X-ray could be studied.

A French physician of Jewish descent who was confined at
Auschwitz from September 1943 to January 1945, testified that
near Auschwitz was Birkenau camp where people were sterilized
by SS doctors. About 100 male Poles who had been sterilized at
Birkenau were attended by the witness after the operation. Later
this group was castrated by the camp physicians.

The record contains other evidence from which it is manifestly
plain that sterilization by means of X-rays was attempted on
groups of persons who were painfully injured thereby; and that
castration followed the X-ray procedures.

Brack’s part in the organization of the sterilization program
with full knowledge that it would be put into execution, is con-
clusively shown by the record.

EUTHANASIA PROGRAM

The Euthanasia Program, which was put into effect by a secret
decree of Hitler on the day that Germany invaded Poland, has
been discussed at length in the judgment in the case against Karl
Brandt.

Brack contends that he was basically opposed to this program

279

and that, on occasion, he assisted certain of his Jewish friends
to escape from its consequences. But be that as it may, the evi-
dence is that whatever sentiments Brack may have entertained
toward individual members of the race, he was perfectly willing
to and did act as an important administrator in furthering the
Euthanasia Program. After it had gotten under way, he wrote
letters to various public officials, explaining to them how to keep
the matter secret and to allay the public sentiment against the
program.

This much is shown by Brack’s own statements. As a witness
on the stand he testified that while at first he did not understand
the full import of the program, he decided, after a talk with
Bouhler, to collaborate in carrying out the assignment and to
execute Bouhler’s orders.

He participated in the initial meetings called for the purpose
of placing the project in operation. He was present at meetings
of the experts, as well as the administrative discussions. He often
acted as Bouhler’s representative, frequently making decisions
which called for the exercise of personal judgment and a wide
latitude of discretion.

Brack admitted that such were his activities in the program,
that one might well have come to the conclusion that he was the
influential man in euthanasia.

As Bouhler’s deputy he addressed a meeting at Munich, where
he explained the purpose of Hitler’s decree and mentioned the
draft of a law which was being prepared to give complete legisla-
tive sanctity to euthanasia — a law, incidentally, which was never
in fact enacted. He represented Bouhler in April of 1941 at a
meeting attended by Nazi judges and prosecutors. He testified that
the Ministry of Justice had become considerably embarrassed
because of the Euthanasia Program, and that he was present at
the meeting for the purpose of imparting information concern-
ing the salutary features of euthanasia to those who were present.

Brack gave the Tribunal considerable information concerning
the method of extermination by euthanasia, stating that the pro-
gram was so designed as to render the process inconspicuous and
painless. In December 1939, or January 1940, Brack, Bouhler,
Conti, and some other doctors were present at the administration
of euthanasia to four experimental subjects. The victims were led
into a gas chamber which had been built to resemble a shower
room. The patients were seated on benches and poisonous gas was
let into the chamber. A few moments later the patients became
drowsy and finally lapsed into a death sleep without even knowing
they were being executed. On the basis of this execution “Hitler
decided that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the

280

patients.” According to Brack these persons were not Jews, be-
cause, as Bouhler had explained to him, “the philanthropic action
of euthanasia should be extended only to Germans.”

The evidence is plain that the euthanasia program explained
by the defendant, gradually merged into the “Action 14 f 13,”
which, briefly stated, amounted to an extermination of concentra-
tion camp inmates by methods and agencies used in euthanasia.
One of the prime motives behind the program was to eliminate
“useless eaters” from the scene, in order to conserve food, hospital
facilities, doctors and nurses for the more important use of the
German Armed Forces. Many nationals of countries other than
Germany were killed.

Brack’s direct connection with and participation in the execu-
tion of euthanasia is conclusively proved by the evidence in the
record.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment the defendant Brack is
charged with being a member of the organization declared crim-
inal by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal,
namely, the SS. The evidence shows that Brack became a member
of the SS in 1929, and voluntarily remained in that organization
until the end of the war. As a member, of the SS he was criminally
implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against
humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indict-
ment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Viktor
Brack guilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

BECKER-FREYSEN0

The defendant Becker-Freyseng is charged under counts two
and three of the indictment with personal responsibility for, and
participation in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Sea-
Water, Epidemic Jaundice, and Typhus Experiments.

The prosecution has abandoned all charges except as to high-
altitude, freezing, sea-water and typhus experiments, and hence
only these will be considered.

The defendant Becker-Freyseng joined the Nazi Party in 1933.
In 1940 he was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In 1943 he was pro-
moted to the rank of Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.

From August 1941 until May 1944 the defendant was an as-

281

sistant consultant to Anthony, Chief of the Referat for Aviation
Medicine, Berlin. This department dealt with all questions con-
cerning aviation medicine and reported to the Chief of the Med-
ical Service of the Luftwaffe. When Schroeder became Chief of
the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe on 1 January 1944, the
defendant became the consultant for aviation medicine in Schroe-
der’s office.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

As shown elsewhere in the judgment, high-altitude experi-
ments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe were conducted at Dachau
concentration camp on non-German nationals, beginning in Feb-
ruary or March 1942. These experiments had been approved, in
principle at least, by Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the
Luftwaffe. A mobile low-pressure chamber which had been in
the possession of the department of aviation medicine, Berlin,
was transferred to Dachau for use in the experiments. Concen-
tration camp inmates were killed while being subjected to experi-
ments conducted in the chamber.

During the time the experiments were conducted, defendant
Becker-Freyseng was an assistant consultant to Anthony, Chief
of the Referat for Aviation Medicine, Berlin. All low-pressure
chambers owned by the Luftwaffe were under the general con-
trol of that office.

It is submitted by the prosecution that the record shows that
Becker-Freyseng was a principal in, accessory to, aided, abetted,
took a consenting part in, and was connected with plans and
enterprises involving the commission of these experiments.

The evidence upon this charge is not deemed sufficient to pre-
ponderate against a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilty
participation in the experiments here involved.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

It is claimed that in June 1942 Becker-Freyseng was informed
from certain of his official files that a meeting to consider experi-
ments to investigate the treatment of persons who had been
severely chilled or frozen would be held in Nuernberg the follow-
ing October (referred to as the “Cold Congress”). It is contended
that the directive which set the experiment into motion was
issued from the office of the department for aviation medicine,
that the funds and equipment were supplied by that office, and
that Becker-Freyseng had knowledge of the experiments, and
that he admitted such knowledge.

As to all this, the proof is clear that Becker-Freyseng was

282

actively employed in organizing and was present at the so-called
“Cold Congress.” But more than the evidence discloses is needed
to establish that he had any later part in or connection with
the experiments themselves, or that he had any controlling re-
lationship to their initial establishment.

typhus experiments

The evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsi-
bility of the defendant Becker-Freyseng in connection with the
typhus experiments.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

We have discussed the sea-water experiments in that portion
of our judgment which deals with the case of the defendant
Schroeder. As was pointed out there, two methods of making sea
water drinkable were available to the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called
Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently pro-
duced potable sea water; the other, the so-called Berka process,
which changed the taste of the sea water but did not reduce the
salt content.

Becker-Freyseng, as chief consultant for aviation medicine in
the office of Schroeder, arranged for a conference to be held in
May 1944 to discuss the testing of these two methods. At the
conference the defendant reported on various clinical experi-
ments which had been conducted by a certain von Sirany to test
the Berka process. He came to the conclusion that the experiments
had not been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of
sea distress to make the findings conclusive.

As a result of the conference it was decided that new experi-
ments should be conducted.

We learn from the report of the meeting, which is in evidence,
that two series of experiments were to be conducted. The first,
a maximum period of six days, during which one group of sub-
jects would receive sea water processed with the Berka method;
a second group, ordinary drinking water; a third group no water
at all; and the fourth group, such water as would be available
in the emergency sea distress kits then used. During the dura-
tion of the experiment all persons were to receive only an
emergency sea diet, such as provided for persons in distress at
sea.

In addition to the 6-day experiment it was determined that a
12-day experiment should be run. The plan for this series reads
as follows:

841684 — 49—19

283

“Persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as
diet also the emergency sea rations.

“Duration of experiments: 12 days.

“Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service
permanent injuries to health, that is the death of the experi-
mental subjects, has to be expected, as experimental subjects
such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by
[the] Reichsfuehrer SS.”

By letter dated 7 June 1944 Schroeder requested the Reichs-
fuehrer SS to allow him to use concentration camp inmates for
the sea-water experiments. The letter stated among other things
the following:

“As the experiments on human beings could thus far only
be carried out for a period of four days, and as practical de-
mands require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up
to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary.

“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be avail-
able for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experi-
ments that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration
camp Dachau, this camp would be very suitable * *

When on the stand as a witness, the defendant Becker-Freyseng
admitted that he prepared the substance of the letter for
Schroeder’s dictation and signature.

Thus with actual knowledge of the nature of the Berka process,
and the fact that if used over prolonged periods it would cause
suffering and death, Becker-Freyseng counselled and conferred
with his chief concerning the necessity for experiments wherein
the process would be used. He gave advice upon the exact pro-
cedure to be used in the 6-day and 12-day experimental series.
He framed the letter to Himmler requesting the use of concen-
tration camp inmates at Dachau for experimental subjects. He
called the defendant Beiglboeck to Berlin to explain to him the
details and purpose of the experiments. He issued the order
under which Beiglboeck went to Dachau to begin the experi-
ments. He received Beiglboeck’s report after the experimental
series had been concluded.

Throughout all stages of the affair, from its inception to its
conclusion, the defendant knew of the dangerous nature of the
experiments. He knew that deaths were reasonably to be ex-
pected. He knew that concentration camp inmates were to be
used as experimental subjects. It is impossible to believe that he
supposed that the inmates of the camps, who were to be fur-

284

nished by Himmler, were to be volunteers. The entire language ot
the letter, which was written to Himmler asking for experimental
subjects, entirely refutes such implication.

The evidence shows conclusively that gypsies of various na-
tionalities were used as experimental subjects. They were former
inmates of Auschwitz who had been tricked into coming to
Dachau under the promise that they were to be used in a special
labor battalion. When they arrived at Dachau they were detailed
to the sea-water experiments without their voluntary consent
being asked or given.

During the course of the experiment many of the experimental
subjects were treated brutally and endured much pain and
suffering.

It is apparent from the evidence that Becker-Freyseng was
criminally connected with the experiments, and that the experi-
ments were essentially criminal in their nature. To the extent
that the crimes committed by him or under his authority were
not war crimes, they were crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Hermann
Becker-Freyseng guilty under counts two and three of the in-
dictment.

SCHAEFER

The defendant Schaefer is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with personal responsibility for and participa-
tion in Sea-Water Experiments.

Konrad Schaefer was a scientist whose special field of research
was chemical therapy. In November 1941 he was drafted into
the Luftwaffe. In spring of the following year he was trans-
ferred to the Luftwaffe Replacement Depot in Salow, and from
there to the Luftwaffe base at Frankfurt on the Oder. In sum-
mer of 1942 he was transferred to Berlin and assigned to the
staff of the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine. His chief
assignment at the Institute was to do research on the problem
of sea emergency for the Luftwaffe. This included research work
on various methods to render sea water potable. Schaefer re-
mained in his position at the Institute without ever having at-
tained officer rank.

In May of 1944 the defendant was ordered to be present at a
meeting to be held at the German Air Ministry in Berlin, called
to consider further research on making sea water potable. Some
months previous to the meeting Schaefer had developed a process

285

which actually precipitated the salts from sea water, but it was
thought by the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service to be too
bulky and expensive for military use by the Luftwaffe.

Present at the meeting were Schaefer; Becker-Freyseng, re-
search advisor to Schroeder; Christensen, of the Technical Bu-
reau of the Reich Ministry of Aviation; and others. The subject
of discussion was the feasibility of using the Schaefer process,
or of turning to another process known as the Berka Method.
The latter method, while cheap, did not precipitate salts from sea
water and was dangerous to health when used for a period of
time — as Schaefer, previous to the meeting, had already reported
to Schroeder. Nevertheless, those in command of the meeting
agreed that experiments should be conducted on concentration
camp inmates to determine the extent to which the Berka method
might be usable.

The experiments later conducted have been described at length
in dealing with the case of Schroeder. Due to his attendance at
this meeting, Schaefer is sought to be held criminally responsible
in connection with the sea-water experiments.

The record has received careful attention from the Tribunal.

Nowhere have we been able to find that Schaefer was a prin-
cipal in, or accessory to, or was otherwise criminally involved
in or connected with the experiments mentioned. In fact, the
record fails to show that the defendant had anything to do with
these experiments, except such as might be implied from his
attendance at several meetings of the parties who were actively
interested therein. Nowhere in the testimony or elsewhere is it
revealed that Schaefer voted for commencement or prosecution
of the experiments or in any other manner aided in their ex-
ecution.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Konrad
Schaefer not guilty of the charges contained in the indictment, and
directs that he be released from custody under the indictment
when the Tribunal presently adjourns.

HOVEN

The defendant Hoven is charged under counts two and three
of the indictment with special responsibility for and participation
in Typhus and other Vaccine Experiments, Gas Oedema Experi-
ments, and the Euthanasia Program. In count four he is charged
with being a member, after 1 September 1939, of an organization
declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.

286

Hoven joined the SS in 1934 and the Nazi Party in 1937. Soon
after the outbreak of the war he joined the Waffen SS. In October
1939 he became assistant medical officer in the SS hospital at
Buchenwald concentration camp. In 1941 he was appointed med-
ical officer in charge of the SS troops stationed in the camp.
He became assistant medical officer at the camp inmate hospital,
and in July 1942 he became chief camp physician. He remained
in the latter position until September 1943. At that time he was
arrested on the order of the SS police court in Kassel for having
allegedly murdered an SS noncommissioned officer who was a
dangerous witness against Koch, the camp commander.

TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS

The vaccine experiments with which Hoven is charged were
conducted at Buchenwald under the supervision of SS Sturm-
bannfuehrer Dr. Ding, alias Ding-Schuler. They have already
been described at length in other portions of this judgment.

The prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that
Hoven was a criminal participant in these experiments. In col-
laboration with the SS camp administration he helped select the
concentration camp inmates who became the experimental sub-
jects. During the course of selection he exercised the right to
include some prisoners and to reject others. While perhaps not
empowered to initiate new series of experiments on his own
responsibility — that apparently being a power which only Ding
could exercise — the defendant worked with Ding on experiments
then in progress. He supervised the preparation of diary notes,
fever charts, and report sheets of the experiments. Occasionally
he injected some of the subjects with the vaccines. He acted as
Ding’s deputy in the conduct of the experiments. He was in com-
mand of experimental Block 46 in Ding’s absence. During the
period of Hoven’s activity in the experimental station no less
than 100 inmates were killed as a result of the typhus experi-
ments. Many of these victims were non-German nationals who
had not given their consent to be used as experimental subjects.

GAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS

It is asserted in an affidavit made by Dr. Ding-Schuler, who
was in charge of Blocks 46 and 50, Buchenwald, that toward the
end of 1942 a conference was held in the Military Medical Acad-
emy, Berlin, for the purpose of discussing the fatal effects of gas
oedema serum on wounded persons. During the conference, Kil-
lian, of the Army Medical Inspectorate, and the defendant Mru-
gowsky reported several cases in which wounded soldiers who

287

had received gas oedema serum injections in high quantities
died suddenly without apparent reason. Mrugowsky suspected
that the fatalities were due to the phenol content of the serum.
To help solve the problem Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part
in a euthanasia killing with phenol and to report on the results
in detail. A few days later Hoven, in the presence of Ding,
gave phenol injections to several of the concentration camp in-
mates with the result that they died instantly. In accordance
with instructions, Ding made a report of the killings to his su-
perior officer.

The fact that Hoven engaged in phenol killings is substan-
tiated by an affidavit voluntarily made by Hoven himself prior
to the trial, which was received in evidence as a part of the
case of the prosecution. In the affidavit Hoven makes the fol-
lowing statement:

“There were many prisoners who were jealous of the posi-
tions held by a few political prisoners and tried to discredit
them. These traitors were immediately killed, and I was later
notified in order to make out statements that they had died of
natural causes.

“In some instances I supervised the killings of these un-
worthy inmates by injections of phenol, at the request of the
inmates, in the hospital assisted by several inmates. Dr. Ding
came once and said I was not doing it correctly, and performed
some of the injections himself, killing three inmates who died
within a minute.

“The total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom
60 were killed by phenol injections, either by myself or under
my supervision, and the rest were killed by beatings, etc., by
the inmates.”

EUTHANASIA PROGRAM

The details of the Euthanasia Program have been discussed
by us at length in dealing with the charges against certain other
defendants; consequently they will not be repeated here.

In the Hoven pre-trial affidavit, portions of which were quoted
while discussing gas oedema serum experimentation, the defend-
ant gives us a partial picture of the Euthanasia Program, in the
following statement:

“In 1941 Koch, the camp commander, called all the important
SS officials of the camp together and informed them that he
had received a secret order from Himmler that all mentally
and physically deficient inmates should be killed, including
Jews. 300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were

288

sent to the ‘euthanasia station’ at Bernburg for extermina-
tion. I was ordered to issue falsified statements of the death
of these Jews, and obeyed the order. This action was known
as 14 f 13’.”

When the defendant Hoven took the stand in his own defense,
he attempted to discredit the effects of the statements contained
in his affidavit by testifying that the affidavit was taken as a
result of interrogations propounded to him by the prosecution
in English, and that he was not sufficiently familiar with the
language to be fully aware of the inculpatory nature of the state-
ments he was making.

The Tribunal is not impressed with these assertions. The evi-
dence shows that prior to the war the defendant had lived for
several years in the United States, where he had acquired at
least an average understanding and comprehension of the English
language. When he was on the witness stand, the Tribunal ques-
tioned him at length in order to ascertain the extent of his
knowledge of English, and in particular, of his understanding of
the meaning of the words used by him in his affidavit. As a
result of this questioning the Tribunal is convinced that no undue
or improper advantage was taken of the defendant in procuring
the affidavit, and that at the time of his interrogation by the
prosecution, Hoven knew and understood perfectly well the nature
of the statements he was making.

The facts contained in the Hoven affidavit were convincingly
substantiated by other evidence in the record, the only real
difference being that the evidence shows the defendant to have
been guilty of even many hundreds more murders than are ad-
mitted by him in his affidavit. As stated, in essence, by one of
the prosecution witnesses in connection with the subject, Hoven
personally killed inmates in the hospital barracks by injection.
These people were mostly suffering from malnutrition and ex-
haustion. Hoven must have killed 1,000 of every nationality.
These inmates were killed on the initiative of Hoven with no
requests from the illegal camp administration or the political
prisoners.

It is obvious from the evidence that throughout his entire
service at Buchenwald, Hoven attempted to serve three masters:
the SS camp administration, the criminal prisoners, and the po-
litical prisoners of the camp. As a result he became criminally
implicated in murders committed by all three groups involving
the deaths of non-German nationals, some of whom were prisoners
of war and others of whom were civilians. In addition to these,
he committed murders on his own individual responsibility. There

289

can be nothing said in mitigation of such conduct. To the extent
that the crimes committed by Hoven were not war crimes, they
were crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment the defendant is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by
the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the
SS. The evidence shows that Hoven became a member of the
SS in 1934, and remained in this organization throughout the
war. As a member of the SS he was criminally implicated in the
commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as
charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal X finds and adjudges the defendant Waldemar
Hoven guilty, under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

BEI0LBOECK

The defendant Beiglboeck is charged under counts two and
three of the indictment with personal responsibility for, and
participation in Sea-Water Experiments.

The defendant Beiglboeck, an Austrian citizen, was a captain
in the medical department of the German Air Force from May
1941 until the end of the war. In June 1944, while stationed at
the hospital for paratroopers at Tarvis [Tarvisio], Italy, he re-
ceived orders from his military and medical superior, defendant
Becker-Freyseng, to carry out sea-water experiments at Dachau.

The sea-water experiments have been described in detail in
those portions of the judgment dealing with defendants Schroeder
and Becker-Freyseng.

The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin
at the end of June 1944, where Becker-Freyseng told him the
nature and purpose of the experiments. Upon that trip he also
reported to and talked with the defendant Schroeder. From these
conversations he learned that the prime purpose of the experi-
ments was to test the process developed by Berka for making
sea water potable and also to ascertain whether it would be bet-
ter for a shipwrecked person in distress at sea to go completely
without sea water or to drink small quantities thereof.

It appears from the record that the persons used in the experi-
ments were 40 gypsies of various nationalities who had been
formerly at Auschwitz but who had been brought to Dachau

290

under the pretext that they were to be assigned to various work
details. These persons had been imprisoned in the concentration
camps on the basis that they were “asocial persons.” Nothing
was said to them about being used as human subjects in med-
ical experiments. When they reached Dachau some of them were
told that they were being assigned to the sea-water experiment
detail.

Beiglboeck testified that before beginning the experiments he
called the subjects together and told them the purpose of the
experiments and asked them if they wanted to participate. He
did not tell them the duration of the experiments, or that they
could withdraw if ever they reached the physical or mental state
that continuation of the experiment should seem to them to be
impossible. The evidence is that none of the experimental sub-
jects felt that they dared refuse becoming experimental subjects
for fear of unpleasant consequences if they voiced any objec-
tions.

The defendant testified that pursuant to the order that had
been given him, it was necessary that the subjects thirst for a
continuous period; and that the question of when, if ever, they
should be relieved during the course of the experiment was a
matter which he reserved for his own decision.

During the course of the experiments the subjects were locked
in a room. As to this phase of the program the defendant testi-
fied that “They should have been locked in a lot better than they
were, because then they would have had no opportunity at all
to get fresh water on the side.”

At the trial the defendant produced clinical charts which he
said were made during the course of the experiments and which,
according to the defendant, showed that the subjects did not
suffer injury. On cross-examination the defendant admitted that
some of the charts had been altered by him since he reached
Nuernberg in order to present a more favorable picture of the
experiments.

We do not think it necessary to discuss in detail what is shown
by the charts either before or after the fraudulent alterations.
We think it only necessary to say that a man who intends to
rely on written evidence at a trial does not fraudulently alter
such evidence from any honest or worthy motive.

The defendant claims that he was at all times extremely re-
luctant to perform the experiments with which he is charged, and
did so only out of his sense of obedience as a soldier to superior
authority. Under Control Council Law No. 10 such fact does not
constitute a defense, but will be considered, if at all, only in
mitigation of sentence.

291

In our view the experimental subjects were treated brutally.
Many of them endured much pain and suffering, although from
the evidence we cannot find that any deaths occurred among the
experimental subjects.

It is apparent from the evidence that the experiments were
essentially criminal in their nature, and that non-German na-
tionals were used without their consent as experimental subjects.
To the extent that the crimes committed by defendant Beiglboeck
were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wilhelm
Beiglboeck guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

POKORNY

The defendant Pokomy is charged with special responsibility
for, and participation in, criminal Sterilization Experiments, as
set forth in counts two and three of the indictment.

It is conceded by the prosecution that, in contradistinction to
all other defendants, the defendant Pokorny never held any posi-
tion of responsibility in the Party or State Hierarchy of Nazi
Germany. Neither was he a member of the Nazi Party or of the
SS. Formerly a Czechoslovakian citizen, he became a citizen of
the Greater German Reich under the Munich Agreement of Octo-
ber 1938. During the war he served as a medical officer in the
German Army and attained the rank of captain.

The only direct evidence bearing on the guilt of the defendant
is a letter written by Pokorny to Himmler in October 1941, sug-
gesting the use of a drug, caladium seguinum, as a possible means
of medical sterilization of peoples of the occupied territories. The
letter follows:

“To the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German
Folkdom,

SS Himmler, Chief of Police,

Berlin.

“I beg you to turn your attention to the following arguments.
I have requested Professor Hoehn to forward this letter to
you. I have chosen this direct way to you in order to avoid the
slower process through channels and the possibility of an in-
discretion in regard to the eventually enormous importance of
the ideas presented.

“Led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered
but destroyed, I feel obliged to present to you, as the Reich
Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom the
following:

%92

“Dr. Madaus published the result of his research on a medic-
inal sterilization (both articles are enclosed). Reading these
articles, the immense importance of this drug in the present
fight of our people occurred to me. If, on the basis of this re-
search, it were possible to produce a drug which, after a reldr-
tively short time, effects an imperceptible sterilization on human
beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our dis-
posal. The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at present
German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could be used
as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens the
most far-reaching perspectives.

“Madaus found that the sap of the Schweigrohr (caladium
seguinum) when taken by mouth or given as injection to male
but also to female animals, after a certain time produces per-
manent sterility. The illustrations accompanying the scientific
article are convincing.

If my ideas meet your approval the following course should
be taken:

1. Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The
enemy listens!)

2. Multiplying the plant (easily cultivated in greenhouses!)

3. Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in or-
der to determine the dose and length of the treatment.

4. Quick research of the constitutional formula of the ef-
fective chemical substance in order to

5. produce it synthetically if possible.

“As German physician and Chief Physician of the Reserves
of the German Wehrmacht, retired (d.R.a.D), I undertake to
keep secret the purpose as suggested by me in this letter.

“Heil Hitler !

[Signed] “Dr. Pokomy
“Specialist for skin and venereal diseases.

“Komotau, October 1941.”

The defendant has attempted to explain his motives for send-
ing the letter by asserting that for some time prior to its trans-
mittal he had known of Himmler’s intentions to sterilize all Jews
and inhabitants of the eastern territories, and had hoped to find
some means of preventing the execution of this dreadful program.
He knew, because of his special experience as a specialist in skin
and venereal diseases, that sterilization of human beings could
not be effected by the administration of caladium seguinum. He
thought, however, that if the articles written by Madaus could
be brought to the attention of Himmler, the latter might turn

293

his attentions to the unobtrusive method for sterilization which
had been suggested by the articles and thus be diverted, at least
temporarily, from continuing his program of castration and
sterilization by well-known, tried and tested methods. Therefore
the letter was written — so explained the defendant — not for the
purpose of furthering, but of sabotaging the program.

We are not impressed with the defense which has been ten-
dered by the defendant and have great difficulty in believing
that he was motivated by the high purposes which he asserted
impelled him to write the letter. Rather are we inclined to the
view that the letter was written by Pokorny for very different
and more personal reasons.

Be that however as it may, every defendant is presumed to be
innocent until he has been proved guilty. In the case of Pokorny
the prosecution has failed to sustain the burden. As monstrous
and base as the suggestions in the letter are, there is not the
slightest evidence that any steps were ever taken to put them
into execution by human experimentation. We find, therefore,
that the defendant must be acquitted — not because of the de-
fense tendered, but in spite of it.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Adolf
Pokorny is not guilty of the charge contained in the indictment,
and directs that he be discharged from custody under the indict-
ment when the Tribunal presently adjourns.

OBERHEUSER

The defendant Oberheuser is charged under counts two and
three of the indictment with Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and
Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, and Sterilization
Experiments.

The charge of participation in the sterilization experiments has
been abandoned by the prosecution and will not be considered
further.

The defendant Oberheuser joined the league of German Girls
(BDM) in 1935 and held the rank of “block leader.” In August
1937 she became a member of the Nazi Party. She was also a
member of the Association of National Socialist Physicians. She
volunteered for the position of a camp doctor in the women’s de-
partment of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in 1940 and
remained there until June 1943. She was then given a position
as assistant physician in the Hohenlychen Hospital under the
defendant Gebhardt.

294

Regarding her connection with both the sulfanilamide and the
bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation
experiments, the same facts are applicable as were presented in
the cases of the defendants Fischer and Gebhardt. Fischer and
Oberheuser were Gebhardt’ s active agents in carrying out these
experiments. They did a great deal of the actual work. They
personally committed atrocities involved in the experiments.

A few facts produced in evidence regarding the special work
of defendant Oberheuser in these experiments are entitled to
comment.

Oberheuser was thoroughly aware of the nature and purpose
of the experiments. She aided in the selection of the subjects,
gave them physical examinations, and otherwise prepared them
for the operation table. She was present in the operating room
at the time of the operations and assisted in the operational pro-
cedures. She faithfully cooperated with Gebhardt and Fischer at
the conclusion of each operation by deliberately neglecting the
patients so that the wounds which had been given the subjects
would reach the maximum degree of infection.

Testimony of the witness Sofia Maczka, an X-ray technician
in the camp at Ravensbrueck, is that deaths occurred among the
experimental subjects. Most of these deaths could have been
averted by proper post-operative care, proper treatment, or by
the amputation of badly infected members.

In one instance — the case of a Krystina Dabska — small pieces
of bone were cut from both legs of the subject. Witness Maczka
testified that she read on the cast of the patient that on one leg
periosteum had been left and on the other leg periosteum had
been removed together with bone. Because she was of the opinion
that the purpose of the experiment had been to check regenera-
tion, the witness asked the defendant Oberheuser, “How do you
expect to get regeneration of bone if the bones are removed with
periosteum?” To this the defendant replied, “That is just what
we want to check.”

Nonconsenting non-German nationals were used in at least some
of the experiments. Many of them died as a result of the experi-
ments. To the extent that the crimes committed were not war
crimes, they were crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Herta
Oberheuser is guilty under counts two and three of the indict-
ment.

295

FISCHER

The defendant Fischer is charged under counts two and three
with Sulfanilamide and Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and
Bone Transplantation Experiments.

Fritz Fischer joined the Allgemeine SS in February 1934 and
the NSDAP in 1939. In the latter year he joined the Waffen SS
and was assigned to the SS unit in the Hohenlychen Hospital as
a physician subordinated to the defendant Gebhardt. In June 1940
he was transferred to the SS regiment Leibstandarte “Adolf
Hitler”, and returned the same year to Hohenlychen as assistant
physician to Gebhardt, where he remained until May 1943. He
then served as a surgeon on both the eastern and western fronts
and, after having been wounded in August 1944, came back to
Hohenlychen as a patient. In December 1944 he was assigned to
the Charity Hospital in Berlin, but returned again to Hohenlychen
as Gebhardt’s assistant in April 1945. In the Waffen SS he at-
tained the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer (major).

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Gebhardt, as shown elsewhere in this judgment, was in personal
charge of the work being done in this field by his assistant Fritz
Fischer. That the latter performed most of the sulfanilamide
experimental work is not denied by him; on the contrary, he
freely admits it. The defense offered in his behalf is twofold ; that
the experimental subjects were to have alleged death sentences,
then impending, commuted to something less severe in the event
they survived the experiments; and that defendant Fischer was
acting under military orders from his superior officer, Gebhardt.
These defenses have been considered and separately rejected in
other parts of this judgment.

It is true, however, that paragraph 4 (6) of Article II of Con-
trol Council Law No. 10 reads:

“The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his
government, or of a superior, does not free him from respon-
sibility for crime, but may be considered in mitigation.”

It is unnecessary to take up and answer all the arguments that
might be presented upon whether or not Fischer is entitled to
a mitigation of sentence due to the circumstances claimed as the
basis of such mitigation. He acted with most complete knowledge
that what he was doing was fundamentally criminal, even though
directed by a superior. Under the circumstances his defense must
be rejected, and he must be held to be guilty as charged.

296

BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE
TRANSPLANTATION

These experiments have been discussed in connection with the
case of the defendant Gebhardt, who was assisted therein by the
defendant Fischer. Testimony and exhibits now constituting parts
of the record in this case reveal that Fischer has offered no
substantial defense to the charge. Indeed, criminal connection
with these experiments is admitted, and the admission includes
the defendant’s own testimony that he personally performed at
least some of the operations. It only remains for the Tribunal to
hold that on the specification above-mentioned the defendant
Fischer is guilty.

To the extent that the crimes committed by defendant Fischer
were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Fritz Fischer is charged
with being a member of an organization declared criminal by the
judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.
The evidence shows that Fritz Fischer became a member of the
SS in 1934 and remained in this organization until the end of
the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally implicated in
the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as
charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Fritz
Fischer is guilty under counts two, three, and four of the indict-
ment.

[signed] Walter B. Beals

Presiding Judge.
Harold L. Sebring

Judge.

Johnson T. Crawford

Judge.

297

SENTENCES

Presiding Judge Beals : Military Tribunal I has convened this
morning for the purpose of imposing sentences upon the defend-
ants who have been on trial before this Tribunal and who have
been adjudged guilty by the Tribunal.

“Karl Brandt, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you
guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership
in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the Inter-
national Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment here-
tofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you have
been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,
Karl Brandt, to death by hanging.

“Siegfried Handloser, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as
charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you. For
your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,
Military Tribunal I sentences you, Siegfried Handloser, to im-
prisonment for the full term and period of your natural life, to
be served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place
of confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“Oskar Schroeder, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged
under the indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said
crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted Military
Tribunal I sentences you, Oskar Schroeder, to imprisonment for
the full term and period of your natural life, to be served at such
prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as
shall be determined by competent authority.

“Karl Genzken, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you
have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Karl Genzken, to imprisonment for the full term and period
of your natural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or
other appropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined
by competent authority.

“Karl Gebhardt, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you

298

have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Karl Gebhardt, to death by hanging.

“Rudolf Brandt, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you
have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Rudolf Brandt, to death by hanging.

“Joachim Mrugowsky, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
membership in an organization declared criminal by the judg-
ment of the International Military Tribunal, as charged under
the indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes
on which you have been and now stand convicted Military Tri-
bunal I sentences you, Joachim Mrugowsky, to death by hanging.

“Helmut Poppendick, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of membership in an organization declared
criminal by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal,
as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you. For
your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,
Military Tribunal I sentences you, Helmut Poppendick, to im-
prisonment for a term of ten years, to be served at such prison
or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as shall be
determined by competent authority.

“Wolfram Sievers, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you
have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Wolfram Sievers, to death by hanging.

“Gerhard Rose, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged
under the indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said
crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted Military
Tribunal I sentences you, Gerhard Rose, to imprisonment for the
full term and period of your natural life, to be served at such
prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as
shall be determined by competent authority.

“Viktor Brack, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you

841584 — 49—20

299

have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Viktor Brack, to death by hanging.

“Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Military Tribunal I has found
and adjudged you guilty of war crimes and crimes against hu-
manity, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against
you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand
convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences you, Hermann Becker-
Freyseng, to imprisonment for a term of twenty years, to be
served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of
confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“Waldemar Hoven, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
membership in an organization declared criminal by the judg-
ment of the International Military Tribunal, as charged under
the indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes
on which you have been and now stand convicted, Military Tri-
bunal I sentences you, Waldemar Hoven, to death by hanging.

“Wilhelm Beiglbgeck, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity,
as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you. For
your said crimes on which you have been and now stand con-
victed Military Tribunal I sentences you, Wilhelm Beiglboeck, to
imprisonment for a term of fifteen years, to be served at such
prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as
shall be determined by competent authority.

“Herta Oberheuser, Military Tribunal I has found and ad-
judged you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity,
as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.
For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand con-
victed Military Tribunal I sentences you, Herta Oberheuser, to
imprisonment for a term of twenty years, to be served at such
prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as
shall be determined by competent authority.

“Fritz Fischer, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged
you guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and member-
ship in an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment
heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you
have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences
you, Fritz Fischer, to imprisonment for the full term and period
of your natural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or
other appropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined
by competent authority.”

300

XIII. PETITIONS

a. Introduction

Article XV of Ordinance No. 7 of Military Government for
Germany (US) provides that the judgment of the Tribunal as
to the guilt or innocence of any defendant shall be final and not
subject to review. However, Article XVII provides that the Mili-
tary Governor has the power to mitigate, reduce, or otherwise
alter the sentence imposed by the Tribunal, but may not increase
the severity thereof. The petitions on behalf of defendants seek-
ing a revision of the sentences have ordinarily been called clem-
ency pleas.

All 16 defendants found guilty by the Tribunal in case No. I
petitioned for clemency to the Military Governor of the United
States Zone of Occupation in accordance with Article XVII of
Ordinance No. 7. Each of the condemned defendants, with the
exception of the defendant Poppendick, also petitioned to the
Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus
and for a writ of prohibition against the proceeding or an order
nullifying the trial and setting the defendants at liberty. More-
over, all defendants, with the exception of the defendant Becker-
Freyseng, filed appeals of some kind with the Secretary of War.
From these various types of petitions, six are set forth below in
whole or in part as follows: petition of appeal to the Secretary
of War for the defendant Karl Brandt, page 302; petition for
a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition to the Supreme
Court of the United States by the defendant Rose, pp. 303 to 306 ;
extracts from the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ
of prohibition to the Supreme Court of the United States by the
defendant Schroeder, pp. 307 to 308 ; petition for review to the Mili-
tary Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation for the
defendant Genzken, pp. 309 to 318; clemency plea to the Military
Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation for the de-
fendant Rudolf Brandt, pp. 319 to 321; and clemency plea to the
Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation for
the defendant Poppendick, pp. 322 to 326.

301

b. Selections from the Petitions to the Military Governor, the
Supreme Court of the United States, and to the
Judge Advocate General

FOR THE DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT

Nuernberg, 4 September 1947.

The

Secretary of War,

Judge Advocate General,

War Department,

Washington, D.C.,

United States of America.

Professor Dr. Karl BRANDT, Petitioner,

Defense Counsel Dr. R. Servatius, attorney-at-law, Cologne

vs.

United States of America
Petition of Appeal

As defense counsel of the defendant Professor Dr. med. Karl
Brandt, I herewith lodge an appeal against the verdict of the
Military Tribunal No. I at Nuernberg in Case I, of 19 and 20
August 1947, by which the defendant was sentenced to death.
For justification of my appeal against the indictment on which
the verdict is based, as well as the verdict itself, I refer to the
following documents, copies of which are attached:

(а) Application for review, dated 28 August 1947, addressed
to the Chief of Military Government for the American Zone of
Occupation in Germany.

(б) Application for writ of habeas corpus, dated 28 August
1947, addressed to the Supreme Court of the United States of
America.

It follows from these attached documents that the defendant Karl
Brandt was unlawfully deprived of the possibility to lodge an
appeal before a Military Tribunal consisting of medical experts.

A re-trial before a court of higher order is necessary in order
to re-examine the errors committed by the Tribunal in ascertain-
ing the facts of the case and applying the law.

I request:

(а) that the verdict of the Military Tribunal, dated 20 August
1947, be annulled.

(б) that a court of appeal be formed for a new trial of the case.

[Signature] Dr. R. Servatius

A ttorney-at-law.

302

FOR THE DEFENDANT ROSE

Prof. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose Nuernberg, 4 September 1947
POW A/938984
Palace of Justice,

Nuernberg, Germany

Defense Counsel: Dr. Heinz [Hans] Fritz

Attorney-at-law,

Bavariaring 14,

Munich, Germany

To the

Supreme Court of the United States of America
Washington, D.C.

Prof. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose, Petitioner

vs.

United States of America

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

and

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

No.

I, the undersigned Prof. Dr. Gerhard Rose, was sentenced, in
the verdict of the American Military Tribunal I in Nuernberg,
Germany, that was announced on 19 and 20 August 1947, of
Case I, United States of America vs. Karl Brandt and others, for
war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control
Council Law No. 10 of 20 Dec 1945, to life imprisonment.

I pray:

(1) that a writ of habeas corpus be issued by this Court, di-
rected to Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Commanding Gen-
eral, United States Army Forces, Germany, commanding him to
produce the body of the petitioner before your Court or some
member thereof at a time and place therein to be specified, then
and there to receive and to do what your honorable Court shall
order concerning his confinement and trial as an accused war
criminal and that he be ordered returned to the status of, and
internment as a prisoner of war in conformity with the provisions
of Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929, relative
to the treatment of prisoners of war and of paragraph 82 of the
Rules of Land Warfare [U. S. Field Manual 27-10], and

(2) that a writ of prohibition be issued by this Court prohibit-
ing the respondent from proceeding with the trial and that the

303

petitioner be discharged from the offenses and confinement afore-
said,

(3) that the costs of the court shall not be levied, because I am
a prisoner of war and my property has been confiscated by the
Control Council for Germany.

As reasons for the above requests I offer the following:

The sentence imposed on me not only violates valid interna-
tional law, but also legal principles whose observance by all the
courts of the United States is guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States of America.

The basic principle that has been violated is that no one may
be deprived of the judge [justice] provided for by law and that
each defendant must be granted a regular trial.

The following violations are charged in particular :

The sentence was passed in violation of Article 63 of the Geneva
Convention of 1929. I am a medical officer and was Generalarzt
in the Reserve, which is equivalent to a brigadier general in the
Medical Corps in the American Army. In May 1941 I was in the
Luftwaffe hospital at Kitzbuehl in Austria and became a prisoner
of war. Shortly afterwards I was flown to England and taken
to Camp Latimer (Bucks), known as POW Camp 7. There I was
registered as a prisoner of war in the middle of June 1945 and
received the POW number A 938984. I was informed that I was
a British prisoner of war. I am still a prisoner of war today,
because I was neither discharged de facto nor was I ever given
discharge papers or shown discharge papers that had been filled
out. As a prisoner of war I have a right to have my case tried
by a court martial, as would be correct in case an Allied medical
officer of equal rank were to be indicted on the same charges. This
Court must not only be an officers’ court composed of judges
holding corresponding rank, but it must also be a professional
court, because it must be composed of medical officers. Since the
American Military Tribunal I is not such a court, it was, for
example, not in a position to correctly judge my activity as scien-
tific consultant medical officer in relationship to that of a com-
manding officer.

Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 purposely makes
no differentiation between crimes that a prisoner of war com-
mits during his prisoner of war captivity and those which he
committed before he became a prisoner of war. In accordance with
the purpose and spirit of the Geneva Convention of 1929, the
prisoners of war are to be protected by this provision from being

304

brought up before a special court or from any limitation of their
legal rights.

(2) There is a violation of Article 64 of the Geneva Conven-
tion because the legal remedies that would be available to an
Allied medical officer in a corresponding case cannot be used
in the case of the sentence that has been imposed upon me, be-
cause Article 15 of Ordinance No. 7 of the American Military
Government in Germany provides that the verdicts of the Mili-
tary Tribunals are final and incontestable.

(3) There is a violation of Article 60 of the Geneva Conven-
tion, because Switzerland was not informed, as the protecting
power for prisoners of war, of the criminal proceedings pending
against me.

(4) The sentence imposed on me violates generally recognized
legal principles. It is based on the Control Council Law No. 10,
dated 20 December 1945, and the ex post facto definitions con-
tained therein. The sentence has inflicted punishment on me for
crimes against humanity, that is, on the basis of an act which
was for the first time declared punishable by Control Council Law
No. 10.

The suspension of this universally recognized legal principle
by a new law cannot change justice itself. The validity of this
special law must be tested by the court.

(5) The sentence violates the basic principle nulla poena sine
culpa, because it punished me according to Article II, 2c and d of
the Control Council Law. These parts of the Control Council
Laws allow punishment for mere consent to an act and for a
merely objective “connection” with the planning or execution of
such act. These provisions represent new substantive law that
has been created ex post facto.

(6) During the trial I was limited in my defense in an inadmis-
sible way. My defense counsel, Attorney Dr. Fritz, twice requested,
in the prescribed manner, that Prof. Dr. Blanc, a French citizen
and director of the Pasteur Institute in Casablanca, Morocco, be
summoned as an expert witness in the examination of the research
work of Prof. Haagen. The medical research work of Prof. Haagen
concerns such difficult medical problems that it cannot, in my
opinion, be judged by judges who lack medical training, without
the expert testimony of a capable specialist. However, the Court
did not approve the requests. This is in my opinion the only rea-
son that I was found guilty in connection with the research work
of Haagen.

305

(7) It is further asserted that the principle of oral proceedings
was violated. In the final stages of the trial the Court ordered a
partly written procedure. Although the main trial had lasted many
months and there was an extremely abundant amount of material
to discuss, from a factual as well as a legal standpoint, my
defense counsel was only allowed one hour for his closing speech.
As for the remaining arguments he was advised to present a clos-
ing brief. In this way the protection of publicity was denied and
the guarantee removed that the Court would really take cogni-
zance of these written statements.

It was not possible for me to receive information concerning
these written statements of my co-defendants in time to take
action thereon.

The contents of the closing brief which my defense counsel sub-
mitted, and the contents of his rebuttal to the closing brief sub-
mitted by the prosecutor against me have obviously not been con-
sidered in the findings of the Court, although the Court described
the closing brief which it demanded as the most important part
of the defense. The English translations of the closing brief and
rebuttal to the closing brief of the prosecution arrived so late that
it seems impossible that the Court could have taken note of the
contents before writing the verdict.

Several closing briefs which had been submitted by the defense
counsels of my co-defendants were not even available at the time
when the verdict was read.

I assume that the Court could not peruse the rebuttal of my
defense counsels to the closing brief of the prosecution before writ-
ing the verdict, because the verdict, insofar as it pertains to my
case, contains several obviously false statements of facts and
furthermore does not even analyze these statements.

(8) The verdict does not have, according to the provisions of
Military Government Ordinance No. 7, sufficient reasons to back
it up. For instance, it is impossible to determine whether the
Court investigated the possibility of duress that would preclude
punishment.

Insofar as incompetency of the American Military Tribunal
No. I is asserted in my case, I point to the fact that it was not
possible for me to object earlier on account of Article II e of
Ordinance No. 7.

I reserve the right to submit further statements and evidence
later.

[Signature] Dr. Gerhard Rose.

306

FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHROEDER

To the

Supreme Court

of the United States of America
Washington

through the office of the General Secretary of the

U. S. Military Tribunal I

Nuernberg.

Oskar Schroeder, Petitioner

vs.

The United States of America

Oskar Schroeder, former Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant Gen-
eral) of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) at present in the
prison of the Court in Nuernberg, Germany.

Counsel for the defendant: Dr. Hanns Marx at present at the
Military Tribunal I Nuernberg, Roonstrasse 15.

Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Writ of Prohibition

%&0

^ ^ ^

Here too, the Court found that I am guilty merely because of
the fact that contrary to duty I did not supervise my subordi-
nates.

Finally the judgment found me guilty with regard to the re-
sponsibility for gas experiments. Here the judgment states:

“A certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff physician of the Luft-
waffe worked with Hirt on the gas experiments throughout the
period.

“We discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding
officer to take appropriate measures to control his subordinates,
in dealing with the case of Handloser. We shall not repeat what
we said there. Had Schroeder adopted the measures which the
law of war imposes upon one in position of command to pre-
vent the actions of his subordinates amounting to violations of
the law of war, the deaths of the non-German nationals involved
in the gas experiments might well have been prevented.”
*******

III

A further infringement against the habeas corpus is the fact
that while I have been found guilty as being responsible for the
Lost experiments, although I have never been indicted on this
count.

307

The verdict of the Military Tribunal I states on page 11 the
names of those defendants who have been accused of having
borne special responsibility for the Lost (mustard) gas experi-
ments. My name does not appear on that list.

On page 187 of the verdict, the Court describes the importance
that this enumeration of defendants has in relation to the various
individual counts of the indictment. It says:

“In preparing counts II and III of the indictment, the prose-
cution elected to frame its pleadings in such a manner [page
7 of the original] as to charge all defendants with the com-
mission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, generally,
and at the same time to name in each subparagraph dealing
with medical experiments only those defendants particularly
charged with responsibility for each particular item.”

The Court goes on to say:

“In our view this constituted in effect, a bill of particulars
and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which
they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that only
such persons as were actually named in the designated experi-
ments would be called upon to defend against the specific items.”

As the Court repeatedly gave evidence during the course of the
proceedings that it adhered to this view I did not defend myself,
did not need to defend myself and could not defend myself against
the accusation that I had participated in the Lost experiments.
Although the Court finds on page 187 of the verdict:

“We think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to
find him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirma-
tively indicated he was not charged,”

it has still found me guilty because of responsibility for the Lost
experiment, so that in view of the Court’s own statements as con-
tained in the verdict, my sentence constitutes, insofar as it con-
cerns this matter, a gross injustice.

I believe that the sentence of the Military Tribunal I violates a
principle insofar as each defendant must be told clearly what crime
he has been charged with, and that he must have opportunity to
defend himself against these accusations.

It is this principle that is being violated in the findings of the
Court against me. In my opinion, it infringes thus the principle
of legal heading laid down in the habeas corpus. It is therefore
obviously unjust, according to the wording of the verdict itself.

*******

308

FOR THE DEFENDANT GENZKEN
Dr. R. Merkel

Defense Counsel of Defendant Dr. Karl Genzken

Nuernberg, 2 September 1947.

To the

American Military Governor for Germany

General Lucius D. Clay

via

the Secretary General of the
Military Tribunal I
Nuernberg.

Concerning: Confirmation of the sentence of Military Tribunal I,
Nuernberg, of 19 August 1947.

Karl Genzken, defendant in Case I, defended by Attorney-at-
Law Dr. R. Merkel, Nuernberg, by verdict of Military Tribunal
I of 19 August 1947 was found guilty of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and membership in the SS — counts two, three,
and four of the indictment — and was sentenced to life imprison-
ment.

I request that the sentence may not be confirmed, since the de-
fendant is innocent of the punishable participation in the typhus
experiments in Buchenwald with which he is charged.

The verdict of Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg of 19-20 August
1947 decided that Genzken in his official position was responsible
for, cooperated in, and promoted the typhus experiments which
were carried out on non-Germans against their will, and in the
course of which, and as a result of which, cases of death occurred.

On the basis of the verdict it is certain that the defendant him-
self did not actively participate in the typhus experiments; he
never entered the Buchenwald concentration camp during the war
and never saw the typhus experimental station in Block 46.

The verdict is based on the presupposition —

(1) that Genzken before 1 September 1943 — as superior of
Mrugowsky, the Chief of the Hygiene Institute, and of Ding in
his capacity as an assistant in this Institute — has had the com-
mand and thus the official supervision over the experiments in the
typhus experimental station in Block 46 of the Buchenwald con-
centration camp,

(2) that Genzken before 1 September 1943 was acquainted with
the kind and scope of the activity of Mrugowsky and Ding, who
were supposedly subordinated to him in the field of typhus re-
search, and

(3) that he nevertheless failed to make sure that this research
work was carried out within legally permissible limits.

309

These statements of the verdict are not correct, since they do
not take into account in any way the actual facts which emerged
on the basis of the extensive evidence submitted by the prosecu-
tion and defense.

Genzken had no command and no official supervision over the

typhus experiments in Block U6

The research for a new typhus vaccine for the Waffen SS was
purely scientific research in the medical field. In contrast to the
Chiefs of the Medical Services of the three Wehrmacht branches
(Army, Air Corps, Navy) scientific research and planning did
not belong to the tasks delegated to the Chief of the Medical Serv-
ice of the Waffen SS. The official agency in charge of scientific
research and planning for all the organizations of the SS and the
police was rather exclusively Reich Physician SS and Police Pro-
fessor Dr. Grawitz (pages 4-6 of closing brief of the defense) .

Exhibit No. 39 of the prosecution proves that Grawitz in 1942
without success requested funds for the intended establishment of
several research institutes. However, in view of the imminent press-
ing danger of typhus, Grawitz, at the order of Himmler, gave the
command to establish a typhus experimental station in connec-
tion with and sharing the funds appropriated for Block 46 of the
Buchenwald concentration camp and in December 1941 he ap-
pointed Dr. Ding of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS head
of Block 46. In reference to this Mrugowsky states: “Himmler
did not order me to take charge of these experiments, but at the
suggestion of Grawitz assigned these duties to Dr. Ding.” (p. 5067
of the English transcript.) In the affidavit of S. Dumont, we read:
“Mrugowsky told me that Grawitz will transmit Himmler’s order
direct to Ding” ( Document Mrugowsky 38, Exhibit 13, p. 50 Doc-
ument book Mrugowsky 1 ) . Finally Blumenreuther declares in his
affidavit of 3 February 1947 ( Document Mrugowsky No. 26, Ex-
hibit 6, p. 170 Document Book Mrugowsky 1) as follows: “In 1942
Grawitz brought about Himmler’s order to establish in the Bu-
chenwald concentration camp an experimental station for typhus
research and appointed Dr. Ding to take charge of this experi-
mental station.” Thus Ding left the Hygiene Institute, when his
research work began, and from this time on he was no longer a
subordinate of Genzken, but as chief of the research department
in Block 46 was directly, immediately, and exclusively subordinate
to Grawitz. As oldest hygienic expert, Grawitz consulted his con-
sulting hygienist Mrugowsky in the course of his researches con-
cerned with typhus. This latter called himself “Reich Physician
SS and Leading Police Hygienist” in his report of 5 May 1942
which was mentioned in the verdict ( Mrugowsky , Exhibit 20, p.

310

86, Doc. Book Mrug. I) . As a result of the shortage of hygienists,
Mrugowsky, in his capacity as head of the only Hygiene Institute
on the home front, was available also to the Reich Physician for
his medical duties concerned with all the branches of the SS and
for his scientific research tasks. As head of the Hygiene Institute
and as head of Office XVI concerned with questions of group
hygiene of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky was subordinate to Genz-
ken, not however in his capacity as hygienic consultant to the
Reich Physician. In connection with these problems, to which be-
longed also the typhus vaccine research, Mrugowsky was subor-
dinate only to Reich Physician SS Grawitz and not to Genzken.
If, as the verdict presupposes, the relationship of giving orders
had really been the following: Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mru-
gowsky-Ding, then Genzken would have had to take orders from
Grawitz and would have been called for conferences with Grawitz.
This has not been established by the prosecution.

Through the examination of witnesses by prosecution and de-
fense, it was established that there were two separate institutions
in Buchenwald: the typhus research institute from December
1941 in Block 46 and the typhus vaccine manufacturing station
from the fall of 1943 in Block 50 ( see page 35, Closing Brief of
the Defense and Exhibit Genzken Exh. No. 5). The manufactur-
ing station in Block 50, and Ding as its head, would have been
subordinate to Dr. Genzken as such if the manufacture of the
new SS typhus vaccine had been started before 1 September 1943.
However, this was definitely not the case; it was still in a prep-
aratory state ( see page b6, closing brief of the defense). If on
page 96 (German text) of the verdict it is furthermore stated
that the official channels were arranged in this manner : Himmler
-Grawitz-G enzken-Mrugow sky-Ding , then this statement also
is in obvious contradiction to the facts established in a clear and
conclusive manner by the examination of witnesses.

Because, as far as the channels of command for the typhus ex-
perimental station are concerned, the following points prove that
these channels of command ran Himmler-Grawitz-Ding for
Block 46:

(1) Dr. Morgen states in his affidavit Mrugowsky Exh. 107
{Doc. Mrug. lib, Doc. Book Mrug. Supplement II, p. 5b), that
Grawitz gave written and direct order to Ding to carry out the
typhus research without Genzken’s participation. Ding showed
Morgen the written order from Grawitz.

(2) The letterhead which Ding used before spring 1943, as
head of the experimental station for typhus and virus research,
read as follows: “Reich Fuehrer SS — Typhus-Experimental Sta-
tion, Buchenwald” ( see Doc. Genzken No. 2, Genzken Exh. 8).

311

(3) The prosecution witness Kogon confirms the fact that all
reports went through Mrugowsky directly to Grawitz and not by
way of Genzken.

(4) Genzken and Mrugowsky both testify under oath that
Himmler and Grawitz gave the order for the establishment of the
experimental station to Ding directly.

(5) In Exhibit 283 of the prosecution, Ding states “that Gra-
witz, in agreement with the leading physician of the concentra-
tion camp Dr. Lolling appointed Dr. Hoven as Ding’s deputy in
Buchenwald”. The appointment, therefore, did not take place by
way of Genzken.

The order channel, Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-
Ding, as stated in the verdict, is based exclusively on the affidavit
of Dr. Hoven dated 24 October 1946, Prosecution Exh. No. 281.
When he was interrogated, Hoven stated under oath that this
channel of command was correct only for the manufacturing sta-
tion in Block 50 and not for the research institute in Block 46
( see p. 9913 of the English record). When Mrugowsky was in-
terrogated, he also stated under oath “that this command relation-
ship referred solely to the vaccine manufacture in Block 50. This
chain of command did not refer to Block 46, and insofar as it is
touched by it, this channel of giving orders is not correct” ( see p.
46 closing brief of the defense ) .

From all this evidence it follows conclusively that Hoven’s
statement cannot be used as supporting evidence for a conviction
against Genzken. For he was not a station on this channel of
giving orders and had never had anything to do about giving
orders concerning the carrying out of the typhus experiments in
Block 46 until 1 September 1943.

If, therefore, the verdict states that Genzken was responsible
for the carrying out of the typhus experiments, then the verdict
does not take into consideration the proven fact that not Genzken,
but Grawitz was the one who gave the order to carry out research
experiments in the concentration camp Buchenwald on concen-
tration camp inmates. Only he who gives the order to carry out
an action and who was a party to it in some other ways can be
responsible for the act. Nothing of the sort has been proved
against Genzken. If, as established by Document Mrug. Exh. No.
107, Grawitz gave the order to carry out typhus experiments to
Ding, then it is impossible that Genzken too could have given such
an order, if for no other reason, because he was never the com-
petent authority for scientific research and projects. Further-
more on the basis of his testimony as a witness, it has been estab-
lished that he never received an order to this effect by Grawitz,

312

and that Grawitz purposely excluded him from exerting any in-
fluence on the research projects in Block 46.

In Genzken Exhibit No. 3, Mrugowsky confirms “that Grawitz,
in conversations with him, frequently emphasized that he — Gra-
witz — was the only one responsible for research and planning as-
signments within the SS, and that Genzken had nothing to do
with them.”

The assumption in the verdict is, therefore, not correct that
Ding undertook typhus research “for” the Hygiene Institute ( page
97, German text of the verdict) . As already mentioned above and
as proved beyond doubt during the trial, Ding did not undertake
these typhus experiments for the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen
SS, but exclusively for his employer and commander, Grawitz.

Genzken, therefore, was not responsible for the carrying out
of the typhus experiments, since he neither commanded nor or-
dered those experiments.

If furthermore the Tribunal is trying to construe incriminating
evidence against Genzken by claiming that Genzken provided the
funds for Ding’s expenses ( see page 97 and 99 of the German
text), this too is a mistake. Genzken expressly said under oath
that he never provided any money for Ding’s experiments, but
that only for Ding’s personal needs had funds been transferred
to the Waffen SS through the medical office. In the Genzken
Document No. 17, Genzken Exhibit No. 15, Rudolf Tonndorf says
“that he never paid or ordered payment for the upkeep or pro-
vided other funds for scientific experiments or for institutions
which served such purposes, because such scientific research work
was not the concern of the medical office of the Waffen SS, but
exclusively that of the office of the Reich Physician of the SS
and Police, Dr. Grawitz.”

In Genzken Exhibit No. 8, Barnewald states under oath “that
the entire administrative care for Block 46 was the concern of
the Buchenwald camp administration through the official channels
via the patients’ building of the concentration camp. The ad-
ministration of the medical office of the Waffen SS had officially
nothing to do with administrative matters concerning Block 46.”

On page 6 of the Ding diary — Prosecution Exhibit No. 287 —
it says that Pohl, the Chief of the Main Administrative and Eco-
nomic Office, gave the order for the enlargement of a block of
stone buildings. On page 9 of that same document a conference
between Ding and two representatives of the Main Administrative
and Economic Office is mentioned (Barnewald and Schlesinger),
who occupied themselves with the breeding of experimental ani-
mals for the experimental department.

Not Genzken, but the authorities competent for the economic

313

supply of the concentration camps, namely, the Main Administra-
tive and Economic Office therefore carried through the financing
of the typhus experiments via the camp administration of the
concentration camp Buchenwald.

Genzken had no knowledge of the character and of the extent of

the experiments carried out in the field of typhus research

in Block 46

The statement in the verdict ( page 105 ) “that Genzken knew
that the prisoners were subjected to cruel medical experiments,
in the course of which deaths were occurring,” is not proved in
any way.

The verdict itself (page 98) states that Genzken said “that he
was aware of the fact that concentration camp inmates were sub-
jected to experiments, and that he stated that he was not advised
as to the methods of experimentation/’ In the cross-examination,
Genzken emphasized that the number of the experimental persons,
of the series of experiments, the number of dead, the cultures for
infections, and the passages had only become clear to him through
the trial, and that the names “Block 46” and “Block 50” had been
entirely unknown to him up to the trial. As proved by the evidence
it is clear, beyond doubt, that Genzken was not informed either
by Grawitz, nor by Ding, nor by Mrugowsky about the details of
the experiments. Grawitz who distrusted Genzken, consciously
never informed Genzken about a single case of his many secret
experiments upon human beings in which, according to the docu-
mentary evidence he participated. The defense has given sufficient
evidence for this fact. Grawitz even prevented Mrugowsky from
informing Genzken (Document Genzken, Exhibit No. 3 ) : “This is
none of Genzken’s business.”

It has also been made very clear by the defense that Ding had
never given any oral or written information about the details of
the experiments. The prosecution could not produce any evidence
for such information.

The verdict speaks about a “warm personal friendship between
Genzken and Ding” (page 97). Their relationship never was more
than one of official comradeship. They did not use the intimate
“Du” in addressing each other. Ding was never a guest at Genz-
ken’s house. Once Ding was presented to Frau Genzken. The two
women did not know each other at all.

Ding’s scientific reports concerning his research went directly
to Grawitz via Mrugowsky. To the question whether it was not
true that reports concerning the typhus experiments in Block 46
went to the office of the Reich Physician of the SS and of the
Police Grawitz, the prosecution witness Kogon answered by say-

314

ing: “This is correct” ( see p. 1290 of the English Transcript).
Mrugowsky said in this connection:

“The reports were never presented to Genzken through me but
in a new envelope went directly to Grawitz” ( see p. 5366 of the
English Transcript). Finally the witness Dumont in figure 7 of
her affidavit ( Document Mrugowsky, Exhibit 13, page 51, Docu-
ment Book Mrug. I) declared: “The reports which Ding made
concerning his experiments with prisoners were directed to Gra-
witz via the Hygiene Institute.”

The verdict tries furthermore to base the fact that Genzken
knew about the typhus experiments via stating that once a re-
port by Mrugowsky of 5 May 1942 went to him and that besides
this, he had been personally informed about everything by Mru-
gowsky. Both conclusions are also wrong and are in direct con-
tradiction to the evidence.

The only document of the prosecution which, according to the
distributor mentions the name of Genzken at all, is the report by
Mrugowsky of 5 May 1942, mentioned in the verdict (page 99 and
following). The conclusions which the Tribunal feels compelled
to have to draw from this report to the prejudice of Genzken do
not apply if only for the reason that this report was never made
available to Dr. Genzken. Mrugowsky said in this respect: “This
report was not presented to Genzken himself but was even later
on, until the end, in the files of Amt XVI.” (See reply of the
defense to the closing brief of the prosecution, p. 5). Genzken
cannot be made responsible for something he, as has been proved,
never knew. If he never saw that report of Mrugowsky and if
he never knew of its existence, it cannot serve as an incriminating
evidence against him.

It is not correct, that before 1 September 1943 Mrugowsky gave
regularly, on the average once a week, oral or written reports
concerning the typhus experiments to Genzken. Mrugowsky only
said that about once a week he reported to Genzken on the hygiene
of the troops at the meeting of the Referenten * of the medical
office. Mrugowsky did this in his capacity as leading hygienist of
the medical office (Sanitaets-Amt) . Mrugowsky never reported to
Genzken about the typhus experiments, on the occasion of these
weekly reports and meetings of Referenten (Heads of Referate,
Departments in a Ministry), if only because of the fact that these
experiments did not fall within the scope of the work of the medi-
cal office of the Waffen SS, and because, upon Grawitz order,
they were to be kept strictly secret. Written reports were never
made at all. The established fact that in the medical office there

•According to German terminology a “Referent” (plural: “Referenten” ) is an official
with expert knowledge of a specialized subject in a government or private organization.

841584 — 49—21

315

was not the slightest information about, nor was there ever any
discussion of, typhus experiments or any other experiments upon
human beings in concentration camps, in itself shows that on
Mrugowsky’s part, no oral or written reports were submitted
to the medical office of the Waffen SS. Four participants in such
meetings of the Referenten of the medical office have borne
witness to this fact (see p. 52 of the closing brief for the defense).

The sole report of the spring of 1943 has been described in
detail by Mrugowsky. His explanations were incorporated into
the verdict word for word. The Tribunal thus considers them to
be true and accurate. Mrugowsky and Genzken both stated under
oath that Genzken had not seen that infection dates and incidents
of death had been marked in the charts which were submitted to
him. Mrugowsky stated literally as follows: “I had no cause to
call his attention to these things expressly because actually I made
no report to him concerning Ding’s experimental series, but
merely wanted to give him factual information concerning the
protective effect of certain vaccines, which he as head of the medi-
cal office had to know.”

On pages 25-26, the verdict states : “In Anglo-Saxon law, every
defendant in a criminal proceedings for a crime of which he is
accused is considered innocent until the prosecution has brought
sound credible proof of his guilt, excluding all reasonable doubt.
This assumption applies to the defendant throughout all the stages
of the trial, until such proof has been brought. ‘Reasonable doubt’
is, as the name implies, doubt that is in keeping with reason, a
doubt that a reasonable person would entertain.”

These statements must be completely and entirely agreed to.
But, when applied to this very case of defendant Genzken and
especially to his alleged knowledge of the experiments, it can
under no circumstances be said that the evidence brought by the
prosecution is sufficient to provide the judge with a lasting con-
viction giving him the moral certainty the accusation is true. For
Genzken did not see Mrugowsky’s report, and the single report
made by Mrugowsky presents, according to the latter’s statement,
no sound and conclusive proof of Genzken’s knowledge.

The verdict holds Genzken responsible (p. 108) “for having
nevertheless neglected to reassure himself that his experimental
work was being carried out within permissible legitimate limits.”

Ill

Genzken had no official supervisory power and no chance
to intervene by giving orders and also no reason
at all to reassure himself

As witness, Genzken himself stated that he had merely known

316

that a new typhus vaccine was to be produced in an institute at
Buchenwald. Genzken had no knowledge whatsoever in this
specialized field of hygiene, as well as no bacteriological training
at all, and had never conducted scientific research work. He had
no reason at all to assume that, in connection with this research,
prisoners would be used in a criminal manner. He was merely
of the opinion that the prisoners were brought in for purposes
of checking the efficacy of the vaccine, in the form of experimental
series which were generally customary in medical research. It was
only during the course of the trial that he for the first time
learned of deliberate infections and that there had been many
deaths during the experimental series. He could not know any-
thing about these facts, especially because the assignment of the
prisoners was, as a concentration camp matter, completely out-
side of his sphere of duties. When, on page 103 (German text),
the verdict implies that Genzken had undertaken no steps to re-
assure himself about the condition of the experimental subjects
or of the circumstances under which they had been taken to the
experimental block, this implication of the verdict is also incor-
rect, because the prisoners were not assigned by the medical
office of the Waffen SS, but by the office in charge of the adminis-
tration of the concentration camp in collaboration with the Reich
Criminal Police Office. Until the trial, he had not even known that
non-Germans were called in as experimental subjects. This and
the fact that all experiments were kept strictly secret made it
impossible for Genzken to institute investigations or to undertake
steps to reassure himself about the condition of the experimental
subjects. If, finally, on page 98 of the verdict, reference is made
to Ding’s diary in order to support the judgment, it must above
all be stated that there are grave doubts as to the probative value
of this document ( see p. 27 and the following of the closing brief
for the defense ). The verdict asserts that Kogon kept the original
diary. That is not in keeping with the facts ; in any case it would
have been impossible for the period from December 1941 to June
1943, because Kogon only became Ding’s secretary on the latter
date ( see p. 1259 of the English Transcript). On page 99 of the
verdict, the Tribunal itself makes the following statement in con-
nection with the entry for 9 January 1943 referred to in order
to incriminate Genzken: “if Ding’s proven attempts at self-glori-
fication are taken into account, one should not credulously accept
this entry in its existing form.” Thus in this connection the state-
ments on page 25 and 26 of the verdict regarding the Tribunal’s
conviction apply in particular. If even the Tribunal, and quite
rightly so, feels considerable doubts as to the correctness and
significance of this entry, it is not permissible to use it in order

317

to the prejudice of the defendant. Besides, Genzken expressly
declared as also confirmed by Kogon ( see p. 1228 of English Tr .)
that he never expressed his approval with regard to the depart-
ment for typhus research, but that this entry would have to be
interpreted as his consent to the change of name of the vaccine
production laboratory. This intended change of name was not ef-
fected until after 1 September 1943, thus at a time when Genzken
was no longer responsible. ( See p. 32 and following of the closing
brief for the defense.)

The verdict states at the end of the opinion for Genzken’s
sentence that he was responsible for the typhus experiments and
that he assisted in them and furthered them.

In the face of all this, the result of the case in chief is once
again to be summarized as follows :

Genzken had no responsibility, no authority to give orders,
and no official supervisory power regarding the Typhus Experi-
mental Station in Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp.
All these were in the hands of Grawitz. The latter gave direct
orders for the experiments to be carried out to Ding who was
his immediate subordinate. Ding’s reports went directly through
Mrugowsky to Grawitz and never to Genzken. The latter had no
knowledge whatsoever of the criminal methods of the experiments.
Genzken had no responsibility, no official supervisory power, and
no possibility to interfere by an order ; owing to his ignorance of
the facts, he had no cause to reassure himself of the conditions
under which the experiments took place. Therefore a sentence in
connection with counts two and three of the indictment ought not
to follow. I, therefore, ask that the verdict should not be con-
firmed on these points, as Genzken is not guilty of a war crime
or of a crime against humanity as is clearly proved by the evi-
dence.

With regard to his membership in the SS, this fact alone is not
sufficient to bring about his conviction before the American Mili-
tary Tribunal. In addition, it would be necessary that his knowl-
edge of criminal experiments should have been proved as in the
Poppendick case. However, in accordance with the above state-
ments this is not the case.

Only the competent German Denazification Board could convict
the defendant for his SS membership. I therefore propose that
the case be referred to the Denazification Board competent for
his home town Preetz/Holstein.

[Signature] Dr. R. Merkel,

Attorney-at-Law .

318

FOR THE DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT

Dr. Kurt Kauffmann

Counsel for the Defense of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt

Nuernberg, 2 September 1947

To the Military Governor of the American Zone of Occupation in
Germany.

Through the Secretary General at Military Tribunal No. I,
Nuernberg.

As counsel for the defense of Rudolf Brandt, who has been sen-
tenced to death, I herewith petition that the judgment of the
American Military Tribunal No. I, dated 19-20 August 1947,
not be confirmed.

It is perhaps the grandest task of a human being and counsel
for the defense to intercede on behalf of another person and to
commend him to the clemency of the mighty.

Clemency appeals to the understanding of the great for human
weakness. Clemency is the opposite of pure criticism and spiteful
anger.

For this reason I remain quiet in the face of the sentence
pronounced; I do not raise any complaint because, in one point
or another, the decision of the Tribunal does not perhaps entirely
agree with my opinion of the course of events, of the position
of the defendant at that time, and of his character.

This petition for clemency wants once more to go into the
depths of the thoughts which basically were already the subject
of my final plea.

One may well believe that at the beginning of the trial, after I
had studied the case of Rudolf Brandt, I recognized that this
task was hardly to be rewarded with success; nevertheless it
seemed to me that it was worth my efforts to take over the de-
fense, since I believed — then as well as now — that Rudolf Brandt
is guilty to receive any kind of punishment but not the death
sentence.

Not a few of the statements made in my final plea serve this
idea. I must admit, however, that even I, as the counsel for his
defense, arrived at this conviction only on the strength of the
characterization of the personality of the defendant contained
in my document book, as well as on the strength of my own judg-
ment of him, which sees in Brandt a beast of burden which

319

dragged on day and night without really recognizing the contents
of its burden ; for the burden which it carried, together with the
weights, which make this trial such a terrible one, were only a
small fraction of the gigantic burden under which the bearer him-
self was not visible any more.

This comparison can be drawn without difficulty from the evi-
dence presented by the defense.

I take the liberty — because it seems characteristic in this re-
spect — to refer to some pieces of evidence which have already been
submitted to the Tribunal, namely:

(1) the affidavit of Medizinalrat Felix Kersten of Stockholm
( Document Book Rudolf Brandt , page 8 ).

(2) two affidavits from Schellenberg and Dr. Stuckart ( Docu-
ment Book Rudolf Brandt , pp. 16-17 and pp. 23-2U ).

(3) I once more refer to the final plea of Rudolf Brandt ( Eng-
lish transcript, pages 11330-35 ) .

(4) I attached two letters of the World Jewish Congress in
Paris and Stockholm, addressed to the above-mentioned Felix
Kersten, which had been rejected by the Tribunal as unessential
pieces of evidence, which, however, throw a distinct light on the
personality of Felix Kersten, who, on his part, defends so warmly
Rudolf Brandt.

The fact that Rudolf Brandt did not make his own decisions
but was under the command of Himmler can be found a mitigating
consideration according to Law No. 10 of the Control Council,
Article II 4 b.

I appeal to the generosity of the great to make use of this pos-
sibility to mitigate the sentence.

A sentence of imprisonment is also a heavy expiation.

The counsel for the defense again and again feels tempted to
regret that these trials are too drawn out and through their long
duration have a negative effect on the broad masses of the German
people. If it is to be the goal of these trials to punish the main
war criminals, these procedures should be shortened. The people
are not interested any more in the course of these trials, apart
from the trial against Goering and others during its first stages ;
one reason for this is, of course, the general plight; because the
hunger of the people, the great mortality, the problem of the
prisoners of war who are not returned to their families, the con-
ditions in the East push everything else aside. Furthermore, the
long duration of the trials causes even the most lively interest
to slacken. But it also seems wrong to pronounce death sentences

320

after such a long duration of proceedings. In the case of the trial
of the International Military Tribunal, the people were still able
to connect the long duration of the proceedings with the sentences
pronounced, because each proceeding was an individual event.
The following trials, however, among them, therefore, the doctors’
trial, are much too much drawn out with regard to German legal
opinion. If such a drawn-out procedure closes with a death sen-
tence, that death punishment seems hardly justified anymore.
German trial procedure does not know such long drawn-out pro-
ceedings, the final result of which is a death sentence. The special
peculiarities of the Anglo-American trial procedures are the
cause for such trials that last for months and months. It has also
to be remembered that the defendants in each case have been in
custody for almost or more than two years when the trial finally
began. Procedures ending with death sentences will have to be
carried through much faster. It is in contradiction to one’s re-
actions that death sentences are pronounced against defendants
with whom not only counsel for the defense has worked together
for many months, but who also for many months appeared daily
in court and were respected by the court, since they are rightly
considered innocent until their guilt is finally established.

Neither should one forget that the defendants themselves, after
having been held in custody for inquiry for such a long time and
having gone through such long drawn-out procedures, have al-
ready atoned more for their crimes than if there had been a quick
procedure started immediately after the collapse of Germany.

If I may impose on the instance for clemency I beg to read some
parts of my final plea; then, I don’t have to repeat myself here.
( Cf . statements on page 1U V , 1; furthermore pages 18-20, 27,
US C).

[Signature] Dr. Kauffmann.

321

FOR THE DEFENDANT POPPENDICK

Nuernberg, 1 September 1947

Georg Boehm, Attorney
Defense Counsel
Military Tribunal I
Nuernberg, 115 Zerzabelshofstrasse

The

Military Commander

of the U.S. Occupation Zone

Germany

Petition

of Attorney Georg Boehm, Defense Counsel at
Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg

for the defendant

Helmut Poppendick, at present in the courthouse prison at
Nuernberg, concerning alteration of the sentence passed
by Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg

The defendant Helmut Poppendick was acquitted of the charges
of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity
(counts two and three) in the sentence of the Military Tribunal I
at Nuernberg in Case I, United States of America against Karl
Brandt et al., on 19 August 1947, and found guilty only, as an
SS member, of membership in an organization declared criminal
by the International Military Tribunal (count four). On 20 Au-
gust 1947, the defendant Helmut Poppendick was sentenced to
10 years’ imprisonment merely on account of membership in
the SS.

I. The sentence exceeds the maximum penalty

According to the recommendations of the International Military
Tribunal (The Trial of the Major War Criminals before the In-
ternational Military Tribunal, Vol. I, p. 288), inserted into the
sentence of the Medical Case, a maximum penalty is provided for
the punishment of members of organizations declared criminal.
The IMT recommendation provides in detail that “in no case is
the penalty, imposed on the basis of Law No. 10 upon a member
of an organization or group declared criminal by the Tribunal,
to be more severe than the one provided in the Denazification
Law”. The Denazification Law, dated 5 March 1946, valid for
the U.S. Occupation Zone of Germany, referred to as a standard
for comparison, provides the maximum penalty of 10 years in a
labor camp. According to present penal regulations, 10 years’
imprisonment is, however, a more severe penalty than being sent
to a labor camp for the same period. 10 years’ imprisonment

322

exceeds , therefore, the penalty provided in the recommendation
of the 1MT. The sentence against Poppendick does not give any
special reason for exceeding the maximum penalty.

II. More lenient evaluation of the group of persons within the
SS who only knew about crimes without, however,
being involved in them

The sentence of the International Military Tribunal declares
punishable in the sense of the statute “the group composed of
those persons who were officially admitted as members * * * in
the SS, became or remained members of the organization know-
ing that use was made of them for committing acts declared
punishable by Article 6 of the Statute, or who were involved in
committing such crimes as members of the organization.” Ac-
cording to a reasonable interpretation of this provision, if mere
membership is punished, one has to differentiate between those
persons involved in committing such crimes and those persons
only knowing about the commission of such crimes within the SS.
According to a sound sense of justice, the provided maximum
penalty for membership in the SS cannot possibly be valid for
both groups of persons. On the contrary, the group having only
knowledge has to be punished more lightly than the group in-
volved in crimes. A penalty inferior to the provided maximum
penalty has, therefore, to be imposed on the first mentioned per-
sons among the SS members called to account. The Tribunal
clearly stated that the defendant Helmut Poppendick was not
involved in the crimes of the SS and, in this way, made it clear
that not even on account of his rank or official position was he
able to prevent crimes. The Tribunal only tried to impute knowl-
edge on the part of the defendant Poppendick of definite experi-
ments specified in the indictment. For this reason the maximum
penalty should not be imposed in the case of the defendant Pop-
pendick.

III. Knowledge of the defendant Poppendick

The Tribunal imputed to the defendant Poppendick, who was
Oberfuehrer of the Waffen SS and Obersturmbannfuehrer of the
General SS: (1) knowledge of freezing experiments; (2) sulf-
anilamide experiments; (3) sterilization experiments; (4) in-
cendiary bomb experiments; (5) phlegmon experiments, without,
however, being criminally involved in them.

(1) Knowledge of freezing experiments is imputed to the de-
fendant Poppendick because he was subsequently invited to partic-
ipate in a conference between Grawitz and Dr. Rascher in Jan-
uary 1943. As Rascher was at that time an officer in the Luftwaffe
and all his collaborators were not members of the SS, this series

323

of experiments (at least in January 1943) cannot be interpreted
as a series of experiments within the SS and consequently as
crimes of the SS. There is no proof of knowledge of such experi-
ments after January 1943.

(2) The defendant Poppendick knew as much about Professor
Gebhardt’s sulfanilamide experiments as Professor Rostock who
was acquitted by the same Tribunal, i.e., that prisoners sen-
tenced to death were used for these experiments.

(3) Knowledge of sterilization experiments is imputed to the
defendant Poppendick by means of a simple assumption, although
the Tribunal pointed out in several passages of the judgment
that a mere assumption of guilt, in our case of knowledge, is
insufficient. Poppendick only worked in the Race and Settlement
Office as a doctor dealing with hereditary questions for members
of the SS and their families; as medical superintendent he had
to supervise this activity and the social welfare doctors. These
matters were purely internal SS affairs. If the Race and Settle-
ment Office occasionally dealt, amongst other measures, with one
of racial policy through its field offices, the doctors were not in-
volved in any case, and there is not the least indication that
Poppendick knew or ought to have known about such measures.
Even the judgment itself reveals to what extent the real steriliza-
tion experiments were kept secret.

(4) On page 112 (German), the Tribunal points out, that in
conferences concerning sterilization experiments (Poppendick
never took part in such conferences) each participant had to
undertake to maintain absolute secrecy. Neither the defendant
Poppendick^ statement nor the evidence submitted reveal that
Poppendick had any knowledge of sterilization^ experiments, let
alone of extermination measures.

(5) In the case of the phlegmon experiments it has not been
proved that Poppendick had any knowledge of them. Here, too,
the assertion that he had such knowledge is based on a mere
assumption.

It has, however, nowhere been proved that defendant Helmut
Poppendick knew about the experiments in such a way as to
necessitate his realizing that non-Germans were being used for
such experiments. In its verdict the Tribunal has consistently
followed the principle that it must be proved that crimes were
committed on non-German nationals ( see pp. 50, 51, 70, 91, 103,
131, 160, German text). In contrast to this the Tribunal left open
the question as to how far the state is entitled to carry out experi-
ments on its own citizens; it stated when dealing with the ques-
tion of guilt: “* * * whatever right a state may have concern-
ing its own citizens” ( see pp. 11 If, 195, German). The Tribunal,

324

therefore, in all essentials confined itself to the question of to
what extent crimes were committed on non-Germans. No conclu-
sive evidence has been brought against defendant Helmut Poppen-
dick in each single case to prove his knowledge of experiments
carried out on non-Germans. In reality, nothing is more suitable
to explain under whatever point of view we have to look at de-
fendant Poppendick’s knowledge of experiments, than his words
at the end of the trial : “As to medical experiments on prisoners,
human experiments were nothing striking and nothing new to
me. I knew that experiments were being conducted in hospitals.
I knew that the triumphs of modern medicine had not been
achieved without sacrifices. I admit I cannot remember that in
experiments in hospitals, the voluntary participation of the ex-
perimental subjects had to be such an indispensable and obvious
prerequisite, as it appears to be according to the argumentation
heard in this trial. Furthermore, I know that some scientific
questions can only be solved by serial experiments in an unchang-
ing environment, and that, therefore, in all countries, experiments
are often conducted, particularly on soldiers in camps. Under
these circumstances I was not at all surprised that during the
war serial examinations and experiments were also carried out
by scientists in concentration camps. I had not the slightest rea-
son to assume that these scientists in the camps went beyond what
was usual everywhere else in the world of science. As far as I
was concerned, what I knew about medical experiments in the SS
had just as little to do with criminal acts as the experiments
about which I knew from my internship before 1933.”

IV. Consequences for future jurisdiction arising from the
penalties imposed by the sentence on Poppendick

The sentence imposed on Helmut Poppendick for his member-
ship in the SS is altogether the first sentence in the American
Zone against an SS member of this kind. Therefore, it has to
be regarded as a precedent for all military tribunals and possibly,
later on, for German courts, whose task it will be to punish mem-
bers of criminal organizations. To sum up its consequences, the
sentence creates a precedent, that —

1. Every SS leader with a rank higher than Poppendick’s, who
knew of SS crimes committed on Germans and non-Germans, can,
on principle, only be sentenced to the maximum penalty.

2. Every member of the SS involved in crimes can be sentenced
up to this maximum penalty again only on account of his SS
membership. What penalty can, for example, be inflicted on an
SS Obergruppenfuehrer who saw how the gas chambers were
run at Auschwitz, without, however, being otherwise involved in

325

the extermination of the Jews; a man thus having, so to speak,
the highest degree of knowledge derived from SS membership? It
is obvious that such a sentence as the one passed on Poppendick
deprives future tribunals of all latitude of discretion, transforms
the maximum penalty into the average penalty , and in this way
renders the recommendation of the IMT absurd.

V. Prevention of further possibilities of appeal

The defendant Poppendick, whose domicile is in the British
Zone, would consequently under normal circumstances have to be
tried by a tribunal (Spruchgericht) set up in the meantime in con-
sequence of the British Ordinance No. 69. Because he has been
sentenced by a Nuernberg Military Tribunal as a member of an
organization declared criminal he loses the two further appeals
provided for by Ordinance No. 69 and its implementation regula-
tions for the British Zone. Therefore this is the only legal way
still open to him to state his case.

VI. Personal Conditions

I make the following application for reduction of penalty with
even greater emphasis, because the defendant has already been
amply punished for his SS membership. His family has lost all
its property and has not a pfennig left. His wife must support
her four little children aged 3 to 7 by the labor of her hands under
the most primitive conditions, without having a chance during
her husband’s entire term of imprisonment to obtain the slightest
financial assistance for herself and her children.

The defendant used his considerable abilities as a physician to
help many people, both Germans and foreigners, during the long
years of his medical practice, without ever even mentioning this
during the trial, because it is a physician’s duty to help suffering
humanity. The defendant, who is not involved in the crimes dealt
with by this Tribunal, suffers sufficiently under his outward dis-
crimination as an SS member.

In view of all these circumstances and with the request for
careful examination of the case, I make in conclusion the

Application

1. For the sentence of imprisonment for ten years inflicted on
defendant Helmut Poppendick to be reduced to a tolerable term
of imprisonment, perhaps to be commuted into a shorter term
of confinement in a labor camp, and at the same time

2. For the 2*4 years’ detention already served by the defendant
to be included in the then newly-determined term of imprison-
ment.

[Signature] G. Boehm,

A ttorney-at-Law.

326

XIV. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCES BY THE
MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED
STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION

OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT
FOR GERMANY (U. S.)

Office of the Military Governor
APO 742

Berlin, Germany
22 November 1947

AG 013. 3 (LD)

SUBJECT: Petitions for Review and for Habeas Corpus in the
case of the United States of America v. Karl Brandt
et al. f Case 1, Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg, Ger-
many (Medical Case)

TO : Secretary General

Military Tribunals
APO 696-A, U.S. Army

1. Inclosed herewith you will find original orders denying peti-
tions for clemency submitted by the following persons convicted
in Case Number 1 before Military Tribunal I:

Karl Brandt
Oskar Schroeder
Karl Gebhardt
Joachim Mrugowsky
Wolfram Sievers
Viktor Brack
Waldemar Hoven
Herta Oberheuser

Siegfried Handloser
Karl Genzken
Rudolf Brandt
Helmut Poppendick
Gerhard Rose
Hermann Becker-Freyseng
Wilhelm Beiglboeck
Fritz Fischer

2. Please formally advise the petitioners through their respec-
tive attorneys of the action taken by the Military Governor upon
these petitions.

For the Military Governor :

[Signed] G. H. Garde
G. H. Garde
Lieutenant Colonel, AGD
Adjutant General

Incls: a/s

Telephone Berlin 42361

327

HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND
Office of the Commander-in-Chief
APO 742

Berlin, Germany

In the Case of

The United States of America

vs.

Karl Brandt, et alii

Order with Respect to Sentence of Karl Brandt

In the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt
et alii, tried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1,
Nuernberg, Germany, the defendant, Karl Brandt, on 20 August
1947, was sentenced by the Tribunal to death by hanging. A peti-
tion to modify the sentence, filed on behalf of the defendant by
Dr. R. Servatius, his defense counsel, has been referred to me
pursuant to the provision of Military Government Ordinance No.
7. I have duly considered the petition and the record of the trial
and in accordance with Article XVII of said Ordinance it is
hereby ordered that:

1. The sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I upon Karl
Brandt be, and hereby is, in all respects, confirmed.

2. Pending action on petitions filed by the defendant with au-
thorities other than the Office of Military Government for Ger-
many, (U.S.), the execution of the death sentence be stayed until
further order by me.

3. The defendant be confined until further order in War Crimes
Prison No. 1, Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany.

[Signed] Lucius D. Clay
Lucius D. Clay
General, U.S. Army
Commander-in-Chief, European Command
■ and Military Governor

Military Tribunal I
Case No. 1

328

HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND
Office of the Commander-in-Chief
APO 742

In the Case of The
United States of America

vs.

Karl Brandt, et alii

Military Tribunal I
Case No. 1

Order with respect to sentence of Siegfried Handloser *

In the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt,
et alii, tried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1,
Nuernberg, Germany, the defendant Siegfried Handloser, on 20
August 1947, was sentenced by the Tribunal to life imprisonment.
A petition to modify the sentence, filed on behalf of the defendant
by Dr. Otto Nelte, his defense counsel, has been referred to me
pursuant to the provisions of Military Government Ordinance
No. 7. I have duly considered the petition and the record of the
trial and in accordance with Article XVII of said Ordinance, it
it hereby ordered that :

a. the sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I, on Siegfried
Handloser be, and hereby is, in all respects confirmed;

b. the defendant be confined in War Crimes Prison No. 1, Lands-
berg, Bavaria, Germany.

[Signed] Lucius D. Clay
Lucius D. Clay

General, U.S.A.

Commander-in-Chief, European Command
and Military Governor

• The sentences imposed upon the remaining 14 defendants were confirmed in all respects
by the Military Commander of thfe United States Zone of Occupation by identical orders.

329

XV. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Monday, 16 February 1948

No. 286, Misc. Karl Brandt, petitioner, v. The United States of
America ;

No. 287, Misc. Viktor Brack, petitioner, v. The United States of
America ;

No. 288, Misc. Rudolf Brandt, petitioner, v. The United States
of America;

No. 299, Misc. Wilhelm Bieglboeck, petitioner, v. The United
States of America. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs
of habeas corpus and prohibition are denied. Mr. Justice Black, Mr.
Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that
the petitions should be set for hearing on the question of the
jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the
consideration or decision of these applications.*

[The execution of death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt,
Rudolf Brandt, Karl Gebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor
Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and Waldemar Hoven were ordered on
14 May 1948 by the Military Governor. Executions were carried
out at Landsberg prison on 2 June 1948.]

* The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus and prohibition in
the case of the other defendants were also denied.

330

•• Equivalent to a eenior Colonel.

% M

S- s

o* 5 *

&H.

t» 2
*1

o «
* K
$1

ct*

8 .

3 .

B 2 .

1 «*

8- g*

J-j ©
►1

cr B

3 §

o >

** i

S' to

2 a

a °*

g*?

ct*

H»

3 a
SL ©

o d

CT ct*

a Q*
p

ct*

a W
to 2
d d

ft gf
S' 2

Ml d

CT ct*

^ cr

M* ©

2 |
C O-i

d. £•
P SL
a to

-q
*8-
a*
a 2.

2.2

8 ?

S o-

o o
© ©
d
©

3 *

P P
H» O

©’

ct*

O-

►i

►1

►i

*M*

3- 2*
y . p

e d
© <■*

► 5 *

£T

►i

■d

«_i,

ct*

►i

►

►j»

£-

a 4

►i

©*

►i

S -

«-u

►1

to*

ct*

►i

•d

►i

►t

►J.

►1

►i

►1

►i

S’

►i

ct*

►1

ui,

►1

(s9

r g

►J. *M»

£.

►1

•d

Ml l-J|

d d

? S’

d d

p p

d d

Ct* ct*

B
B

P
d
OL.

►1

M*»

►i

►1

Ct*

ct*

•d

►1

ct*

S’

t—t

ct*

O W
or 3*

a. g.

a &o

►i

^ Mj CQ

O- d P d*

h. s- 3* §

a 3 <0 a

n>. 3 a 5.

M ©

3 a

q n*

. c 2

* cr a

>1 H*

>i ©

o w

S’ J

M» Oj
d P

►i

►1

►i

cr
d

a b

d h»

cr ©

*i cr

d o>

• d

©*

ct*

►

O
C0 S’

* s*

ct*

Ct*

i s

iz5

Ct*

•

3 .

ct*

Ct*

2 -

ct*

ts»

d 1

i 5

S’

S-

Ct*

S-

ct*

►

841584 — 49 — 22

331

Table of Comparative Ranks

List of Witnesses in Case I

[Note. — All witnesses in this case appeared before the Tribunal. Prosecution witnesses are
designated by the letter “P”, defense witnesses by the letter “D M , and the Tribunal
witness by the letter "T”. The names not preceded by any designation represent
defendants testifying in their own behalf. Extracts from testimony in this case are
listed in the index of documents and testimony.]

SpP

* 3*

Name

Dates of testimony

Pages

(mimeographed

transcript)

ALEXANDER, Dr. Leo. .

AUGUSTINICK,

Dr. Herbert

20 Dee 40 T t

805-814; 832-838;
848-855; 864-869

3701-3737

27, 28 Feb 47

BECKER-FREYSENG,
Hermann

19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27,

7774-8243;

28, 29 May 46

8255-8292

BEIGLBOECK, Wilhelm.

6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17

8666-9028;

BLOCK, Maria Lotte. . . .

Jun 46

16, 17 Apr 47

9326-9328

6002-6031

BLOME, Kurt

BORKENAU. Franz

13, 14, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21 Mar 47

14, 15 Apr 47

4450-4811

5890-5908

BRACK,

Vilctor Hermann

12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
19 May 47

7413-7772

BRANDT, Karl

3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Feb 47.

2301-2661

BRANDT, Rudolf

24, 25, 26 Mar 47.

4869-4994

BROEL-PLATER, Maria.

19, 20 Dec 46

785-804

BROERS,

rionstant.vn Johan

30 Jun 47

10386-10406

CHRISTENSEN, Heinz..

24 Feb 47

3430-3454

DORN, Paul Friedrich. .

DZIDO, Jadwiga

EYER Otea

5, 6 Jun 47

20 Dec 46

15 Jan 47

8574-8665

838-848

1755-1779

FISCHER, Fritz

10, 11, 12 Mar 47..

4266-4384

GEBHARDT, Karl

4, 5, 6, 7, 10 Mar 47.

3931-4256

GENZKEN, Karl

28 Feb ; 3 Mar 47 . .

3773-3891

GRANDJEAN,

Henri -Jean

6 Jan 47

1099-1105;

1119-1120

332

List of Witnesses in Case I, Cont'd

Name

Dates of testimony

Pages

(mimeographed

transcript)

GUTZEIT, Kurt

7, 10 Feb 47

2692-2764

HAAGEN, Eugen

17, 18, 19, 20

Jun 47

9408-9712

HALL, Ferdinand

3 Jan 47

1048-1073

HANDLOSER, Siegfried.

11, 12, 13, 18

Feb 47

2815-3104

HARTLENBEN, Hans...

19 Feb 47

3189-3231

HEDERICH, Karl Heinz.

8, 9 May 47

7262-7291

HENRI PIERRE, Henri.

18 Dec 46

708-722

HIELSCHER, Friedrich.

15, 16 Apr 47

5926-5994

HIRTZ, Georg

8 Jan 47

1291-1300

HOELLENRAINER,

10229-10234;

Karl

27 Jun 47; 1 Jul 47.

10508-10544

HOERING, Felix

17 Apr 47

6031-6078

HORN, Videslaw

31 Mar, 1 Apr 47. .

5245-5333

HOVEN, Waldemar

21, 23, 24 Jun 47. . .

9761-10004

IVY, Dr. Andrew Conway.

12, 13, 14, 16

Jun 47

9029-9324

JAEGER, Rolf

28 Mav 47

8244-8255

JENTSCH, Werner

26 Feb 47

3582-3602

JUNG, Friedrich

26 Jun 47

10148-10154

KARLSTETTER, Maria.

25 Feb 47

3455-3461

KAROLEWSKA,

Vladislava

20 Dec 46

815-832

KIRCHHEIMER, Fritz..

8, 9 Jan 47

1321-1348

KOCH, Ernst

26 Jun 47

10120-10144

KOGON, Dr. Eugen

6. 7. 8 Jan 47

1150-1290

KOSMEHL, Dr. Herbert.

12 Mar 47

4387-4446

KUSMIERCZUK, Maria.

20 Dec 46

856-864

LAMMERS,

Hans Heinrich

7 Feb 47

2661-2692

333

List of Witnesses in Case I , Cont'd

Name

Dates of testimony

Pages

(mimeographed

transcript)

LAUBINGER. Josef

27 Jun 47

10198-10229

1961-2028

LEIBBRANDT, Werner.

27 Jan 47

LEVY, Robert

17 Dec 46

550-561

LUTZ, Wolfgang

12 Dec 46

266-308

MACZKA, Sofia

10 Jan 47

1430-1462

MAY, Eduard

14 Apr 47

5869-5889

MEINE, August

21, 24 Mar 47

4831-4867

METTBACH, Ernst

21 Jun 47

9714-9757

MENNECKE, Fritz

16, 17 Jan 47

1866-1946

MICHALOWSKI,

Father Leo

21 Dec 46

871-886

MRUGOWSKY, Joachim.

26, 27, 28, 31 Mar
47; 1, 2, 3 Apr 47. .

5000-5244;

5334-5464

NALES, Gerrid Hendrick.

30 Jun 47

10409-10471

NEFF. Walter

17, 18 Dec 46

595-695

OBERHEUSER, Herta..

3, 8 Apr 47

5478-5528

PFANNMUELLER,

Hermann

9, 12 May 47

7291-7412

PIECK, Henry

20 Mar 47

4722-4755

POKORNY, Adolf

25, 26 Jun 47

10007-10109

POPPENDICK, Helmut..

8, 9 Apr 47

5530-5651

ROEMHILD, Ferdinand.
ROMBERG,

14 Jan 47

1627-1664

Hans Wolfgang

ROSE, Gerhard

1, 2, 5, 6 May 47. .

18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Apr 47

6764-7032A

6081-6484

ROSTOCK, Paul

RUFF, Siegfried

20, 21, 24 Feb 47. .

25, 28, 29, 30
Apr 47

3258-3430

6490-6739

SIEVERS, Wolfram

9, 10, 11, 14 Apr 47.

, 5656-5869

334

List of Witnesses in Case I , Cont'd

Name

Dates of testimony

Pages

(mimeographed

transcript)

SCHAEFER, Konrad. . . .

2, 4 Jun 47

8349-8399;

8494-8571

SCHMIDT, Bernhard....

19 Feb 47

3144-3188

SCHMIDT, Edith

9 Jan 47

1364-1383

1816-1863

3469-3582;

3602-3700

SCHMIDT,

Walter Eugen

16 Jan 47

SCHROEDER, Oskar. . . .

25, 26, 27 Feb 47..

STOEHR,

Heinrich Wilhelm

17 Dec 46

574-594

5908-5924

TOPF, Erwin

15 Apr 47

TRUX, Rudolf

26 Jun 47

10110-10120

9329-9363

TSCHOFENIG, Joseph..

17 Jun 47

VIEWEG,

August Heinrich

VOLLHARDT, Franz....

13, 16 Dec 46

3 Jun 47

418-468
8400 — 8490

VORLICEK, Joseph

17 Jun 47

9383-9407

7035-7254

WELTZ, Georg August. .

6, 7, 8 May 47

WITT, Fritz

28 Feb 47

3740-3753

WUERFLER, Paul

18, 19 Feb 47

3104-3144

335

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY

Vol-

Document No. Exhibit No. Description Page

NO-005 Pros. Ex. 279

NO-011 Pros. Ex. 188

NO-018 Pros. Ex. 404

NO-035 Pros. Ex. 142

NO -036 Pros. Ex. 143

NO-038 Pros. Ex. 147

NO-039 Pros. Ex. 153

NO-046a Pros. Ex. 148

NO-046b Pros. Ex. 149

Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 1-344
22 November 1944, requesting
prisoners for experiments.

Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 1-504
16 June 1943, concerning epi-
demic jaundice experiments at
concentration camp Sachsen-
hausen.

Letter from Himmler to Brack, 1-856
19 December 1940, requesting
that euthanasia station Grafen-
eck be discontinued and that
motion pictures be shown to
dispel rumors.

Letter from Pokorny to Himmler, 1-713
October 1941, concerning a
sterilization drug to be used
against Germany’s enemies.

Letter from Himmler, 10 March 1-714
1942, to Pohl (initialed by
Rudolf Brandt) concerning a
sterilization drug and suggest-
ing further research on crim-
inals.

Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-715
Pohl, June 1942, transmitting
an inquiry by Himmler as to
the progress made with ex-
periments for medical sterili-
zation.

Letter from Guild to Himmler, 1-717
24 August 1942, concerning re-
search in medical sterilization
and development of steriliza-
tion drugs.

Letter from Pohl to Himmler, 1-716
3 June 1942, concerning the
development of a sterilization
drug by the firm of Dr.
Madaus and Co.

Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-717
Pohl, 11 June 1942, asking him
on behalf of Himmler to set
up a large hothouse for the
development of a sterilization
drug.

336

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

N 0-080 ....

Pros. Ex. 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, I- 81

concerning the Medical and
Health Services.

NO-081 ....

Pros. Ex. 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 Sep- I- 83

tember 1943, concerning the
Medical and Health Services,

1943.

NO-082 ....

Pros. Ex. 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August 1944, I- 83

concerning the appointment
of a Reich Commissioner for
Medical and Health Services,

1944.

NO-085 ....

Pros. Ex. 175 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf 1-784

Brandt, 9 February 1942, and
report by Hirt concerning the
acquisition of skulls of Jew-
ish-Bolshevik Commissars.

NO-086 ....

Pros. Ex. 177 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf 1-750

Brandt, 2 November 1942, re-
questing with Himmler’s ap-
proval, 150 skeletons.

NO-087 ....

Pros. Ex. 181 Letter from Sievers to Eichmann, 1-751

(copy to Rudolf Brandt), 21
June 1943, concerning selec-
tion of subjects for a skeleton
collection.

NO-098 ....

Pros. Ex. 263 Memorandum from Sievers to 1-337

Rudolf Brandt, 3 November
1942, concerning research in
the Natzweiler concentration
camp.

NO-099 . . . .

Pros. Ex. 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on 1-341

the proposed treatment of
poisoning caused by Lost gas.

NO 121 ....

Pros. Ex. 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 1-578

15 November 1943, concerning
prisoners to be used as ex-
perimental subjects for tests
with typhus vaccine.

NO 122 ....

Pros. Ex. 298 Letter dictated by Rose, ad- 1-579

dressed to Haagen, 13 Decern-

ber 1943, concerning experi-
mental subjects for vaccine
experiments.

337

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-123 Pros. Ex. 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 1-580

March 1944, concerning exper-
iments conducted with typhus
vaccine and requesting exper-
imental subjects.

NO-125 Pros. Ex. 194 Letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 1-506

27 June 1944, concerning epi-
demic jaundice experiments on
human beings.

NO-139 Pros. Ex. 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to 1-581

Haagen, 7 March 1944, con-
cerning reports on yellow fever
virus experiments requested by
a Japanese medical officer.

NO-158 Pros. Ex. 410 Letter from Hirche, administra- 1-858

tor of the Mental Institution
Bernburg, to camp comman-
dant of the Gross-Rosen con-
centration camp, 19 March
1942, with list of inmates
transferred from the concen-
tration camp to Bernburg.

NO-177 Pros. Ex. 133 Minutes of conference at the 1-448

Reich Ministry of Aviation, 20
May 1944, concerning methods
for making sea water potable.

NO-182 Pros. Ex. 137 Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 1-454

24 July 1944, concerning ex-
periments of the potability of
sea water.

NO-183 Pros. Ex. 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to 1-453

Grawitz, undated, concerning
experimental subjects.

NO-184 Pros. Ex. 132 Letter from the Technical Office 1-447

of the Reich Minister of Avia-
tion (Goering) to Himmler’s
office, 15 May 1944, concern-
ing methods to render sea
water potable.

NO-185 Pros. Ex. 134 Letter from Schroeder to Himm- 1-452

ler and Grawitz, 7 June 1944,
requesting subjects for sea-
water experiments.

338

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-193 Pros. Ex. 264

NO-201 Pros. Ex. 290

NO-203 Pros. Ex. 161

NO-205 Pros. Ex. 163

NO-206 Pros. Ex. 164

NO-208 Pros. Ex. 166

NO-211 Pros. Ex. 169

NO-212 Pros. Ex. 173

Letter from Sievers to Rudolf 1-340
Brandt, 22 April 1943, regard-
ing prevention of Dr. Wim-
mer’s transfer to active duty
with the air force.

Report from Mrugowsky to the 1-635
Criminological Institute, 12
September 1944, concerning
experiments with aconitine ni-
trate projectiles.

Covering letter from Brack to 1-719
Himmler, 28 March 1941, with
report on experiments concern-
ing sterilization and castra-
tion by X-rays.

Letter from Brack to Himmler, 1-721
23 June 1942, proposing steri-
lization of two to three million
Jews.

Letter from Himmler (counter- 1-722
signed by Rudolf Brandt), 11
August 1942, addressed to
Brack, concerning Himmler’s
interest in sterilization exper-
iments.

Letter from Blankenburg to 1-723
Himmler, 29 April 1944, re-
garding employment of Dr.

Horst Schumann on experi-
ments concerning the influence
of X-rays on human genital
glands in connection with sim-
ilar experiments conducted at
concentration camp Auschwitz.

Letter from Professor Clauberg 1-724
to Himmler, 30 May 1942 (re-
ferring to a letter from Rudolf
Brandt) , concerning the ur-
gency of research into bio-
logical propagation and steri-
lization without operation, and
draft of a “Research Institute
for Biological Propagation”.

Letter from Professor Clauberg 1-730
to Himmler, 7 June 1943, re-
porting on research in connec-
tion with the sterilization of
women.

339

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-213 Pros. Ex. 171

NO-216 Pros. Ex. 170

NO-218 Pros. Ex. 56

NO-220 Pros. Ex. 61.

NO-224 Pros. Ex. 76.

NO-227 Pros. Ex. 11.

NO-228 Pros. Ex. 206

NO-231 Pros. Ex. 116

NO-234 Pros. Ex. 83.

NO-244 Pros. Ex. 201

Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-729
Clauberg, 10 July 1942, trans-
mitting instructions of Himm-
ler to perform sterilizations on
Jewesses at concentration camp
Ravensbrueck.

Memorandum of Rudolf Brandt, 1-728
July 1942, on a discussion
between Himmler, Gebhardt,
Gluecks, and Clauberg con-
cerning sterilization experi-
ments conducted on Jewesses.

Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-150

16 April 1942, reporting on
high-altitude experiments with
fatal results and on experi-
ments conducted together with
Romberg.

Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-152
11 May 1942, and secret report
concerning high-altitude exper-
iments.

Note by Romberg on showing of 1-174
film in office of State Secretary
Milch, and proposed report to
Milch, 11 September 1942.

Fuehrer Decree of 7 August 1944 I- 84
concerning the reorganization
of the Medical Services of the
Wehrmacht.

Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 1-371
19 November 1946, concern-
ing sulfanilamide experiments
conducted in the concentration
camp Ravensbrueck.

Letter from Rascher to Sievers, 1-255

17 May 1943, concerning a
conference with Gebhardt on
freezing experiments.

Letter from Rascher to Himm- 1-219
ler, 10 September 1942, trans-
mitting intermediate report
on freezing experiments
(1618- -PS).

Letter from Himmler (signed by 1—770
Rudolf Brandt) to Greiser,

27 June 1942, concerning the

340

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-246 Pros. Ex. 196

NO-247 Pros. Ex. 197

NO-250 Pros. Ex. 203

NO-257 Pros. Ex. 283

NO-264 Pros. Ex. 60.

NO-265 Pros. Ex. 287

NO-268 Pros. Ex. 106

NO-285 Pros. Ex. 86.

NO-286 Pros. Ex. 88

NO-289 Pros. Ex. 72

extermination of tubercular
Poles.

Letter from Greiser to Himmler 1-776
1 May 1942, concerning the
plan for mass extermination of
tubercular Poles.

Letter from Koppe to Rudolf 1-769
Brandt, 3 May 1942, concern-
ing the killing of tubercular
Poles.

Letter from Blome to Greiser, 1-771

18 November 1942, concern-
ing the mass extermination of
tubercular Poles.

Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 1-572
Erwin Schuler, 20 July 1945,
concerning typhus experiments.

Extract from a sworn statement 1-686
by Dr. Erwin Schuler (Ding),

20 July 1945, concerning eu-
thanasia with phenol injection.

File note for SS Obersturm- 1-151
fuehrer Schnitzler, 28 April
1942.

Diary of the Division for Typhus 1-557
and Virus Research at the In-
stitute of Hygiene of the Waf-
fen SS (Ding diary) 1941 to
1945.

Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 1-252

19 February 1943, on freezing
experiments in Dachau.

Letter from Rascher to Rudolf 1-221
Brandt, 3 October 1942, stat-
ing that Sievers would obtain
four gypsy women for rewarm-
ing through body warmth.

Letter from Goering’s office to 1-223
Himmler, 8 October 1942, with
attached invitation to the con-
ference on “Medical Problems
Arising from Hardships of Sea
and Winter.”

Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 1-173
8 October 1942, thanking the

341

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Paee

latter for his assistance in
high-altitude experiments in
Dachau.

NO-292

.... Pros. Ex. Ill Letter from Rascher to Rudolf 1-253

Brandt, 4 April 1943, report-
ing on dry-freezing experi-
ments in Dachau.

NO-299

Pros. Ex. 190 Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 1-505

12 June 1944, concerning epi-
demic jaundice experiments.

NO-303 ....

Pros. Ex. 32 Table of organization of the I- 88

“Ahnenerbe” from the files of
the Ahnenerbe Society.

NO-320 ....

Pros. Ex. 103 Letter from Sievers to Brandt, 1-246

28 January 1943, and Rasch-
er’s report on his discussions
with Grawitz and Poppendick.

NO-322 ....

Pros. Ex. 114 Letter from Rascher to Keindl, 1-254

28 April 1943, about previous
freezing experiments conducted
at Sachsenhausen.

NO-323 ....

Pros. Ex. 94 Memorandum of Rascher on 1-245

women used for rewarming in
freezing experiments, 5 No-
vember 1942.

NO-365 ....

Pros. Ex. 507 Unsigned draft letter from Dr. 1-870

Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25 Octo-
ber 1941, dealing with Brack's
collaboration in the construc-
tion of gas chambers for the
extermination of Jews.

NO-371 ....

Pros. Ex. 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf 1-503

Brandt, 14 October 1946, con-
cerning experiments to deter-
mine the cause of epidemic
jaundice.

NO 402 . . . .

Pros. Ex. 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, and 1-155

report, 28 July 1942, from
Romberg and Ruff to Himmler
concerning experiments on res-
cue from high altitudes.

NO-409 ...

.Pros. Ex. 249 Report from Grawitz to Himm- 1-657

ler, 29 August 1942, concern-

ing experiments with biochem-
ical remedies conducted at the
Dachau and Auschwitz con-
centration camps.

342

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-422 Pros. Ex. 33

NO-426 Pros. Ex. 160

NO-428 Pros. Ex. 91.

NO-429 Pros. Ex. 281

NO-432 Pros. Ex. 119

NO-438 Pros. Ex. 240

NO-441 Pros. Ex. 205

NO-472 Pros. Ex. 234

Letter from Himmler to Sievers, I- 89
7 July 1942, concerning the
establishment of an “Institute
for Military Scientific Re-
search” within the Ahnenerbe
Society.

Extract from the affidavit of 1-842
defendant Brack, 14 October
1946, describing administra-
tive details and procedure of
the Euthanasia Program.

Report of 10 October 1942, on 1-226
cooling experiments on human
beings.

Extract from the affidavit of 1-555
defendant Hoven, 24 October
1946, concerning typhus and
virus experiments.

Extracts from the affidavit of 1-685
Waldemar Hoven, 24 October
1946, concerning the killing of
inmates by phenol and other
means.

Extract from the affidavit of 1-847
defendant Hoven, 24 October
1946, concerning the transfer
of concentration camp inmates
to euthanasia stations for ex-
termination.

Letter from Rascher to Neff, 1-258
21 October 1943, concerning
dry-freezing experiments.

Report from the Institute for 1-678
Military Scientific Research,
(Department Dr. Rascher) on
“Polygal 10”.

Affidavit of defendant Rudolf 1-775
Brandt, 24 October 1946, con-
cerning the plan to extermi-
nate tubercular Polish Na-
tionals.

Affidavit of the defendant Fisch- 1-376
er, 21 October 1946, supple-
menting his affidavit concern-
ing sulfanilamide experiments.

343

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

N 0-520 Pros. Ex. 374

NO-571 Pros. Ex. 285

NO-579 Pros. Ex. 288

NO-610 Pros. Ex. 41.

NO-645 Pros. Ex. 3..

NO-656 Pros. Ex. 247

NO-660 Pros. Ex. 377

NO-690 Pros. Ex. 120

NO-794 Pros. Ex. 259

NO-807 Pros. Ex. 185

Letter from the chief of the 1-854
Institution for feeble-minded
in Stetten to Dr. Frank, 6 Sep-
tember 1940, requesting that
euthanasia be carried out only
after legal basis was created.

1943 Work Report for Depart- 1-573
ment for Typhus and Virus
Research.

Extract from a report on the 1-644
Findings of 2 January 1944,
on a skin ointment — R 17 — for
phosphorus burns.

Inmates of the Dachau concentra- 1-898
tion camp in different stages -900
of simulated altitude in the
low-pressure chamber; post-
mortem dissections of high al-
titude experimental subjects
showing air bubbles in blood
vessels in subarachnoid space
of brain and under pleura of
anterior chest wall. (See se-
lections from photographic evi-
dence of the prosecution.)

Table of organization of the I- 91
Reich Commissioner for Health
and Medical Services, drawn
by the defendant Karl Brandt.

Memorandum by SS Obersturm- 1-680
bannfuehrer Wolff, 8 May
1944; letters from Dr. Kahr
to Rascher, 10 and 16 Decem-
ber 1943.

Note by Sellmer, 6 December 1-855
1940, describing the method of
selection for euthanasia.

List of research projects from 1-259
the files of the Reich Research
Council.

Letter from Sievers to Rudolf 1—336
Brandt, 27 June 1942, con-
cerning mustard gas and its
effect on human beings.

Tank containing formaldehyde 1-905
for the preservation of -908
corpses; corpses assembled in

344

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

NO-842 Pros. Ex. 405

NO-856 Pros. Ex. 125

NO-861 Pros. Ex. 232

NO-875 Pros. Ex. 230

NO-891 Pros. Ex. 414

NO-894 Pros. Ex. 38.

NO-907 Pros. Ex. 412

NO-978 Pros. Ex. 480

tanks prior to dissection;
corpse showing incisions in
preparation for dissection.

(See selections from photo-
graphic evidence of the prose-
cution.)

Letter from Brack to Dr. 1-857
Schlegelberger, 18 April 1941,
forwarding forms for eutha-
nasia and suggesting that
death notifications should not
follow a stereotyped form.

Extracts from the review of the 1-289
proceedings of the general mil-
itary court in the case of the
United States vs. Weiss, Rup-
pert, et al., held at Dachau,
Germany.

Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 1-402
April 1946, concerning experi-
mental operations on inmates
of the Ravensbrueck concen-
tration camp.

Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka Nedve- 1-400
dova-Nejedla, M.D., of Prague,
concerning experimental oper-
ations conducted on fellow in-
mates in Ravensbrueck con-
centration camp.

Directive of the Reich Minister 1-863
of the Interior, 6 September
1944, ordering euthanasia ex-
tended to insane Eastern
workers.

Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, I- 90
concerning the Reich Research
Council.

Extract from letter from Dr. 1-861
Fritz Mennecke to his wife,

25 November 1941, concerning
his activities as physician se-
lecting inmates of concentra-
tion camp Buchenwald for eu-
thanasia.

Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 1-349
11 September 1942, concern-
ing military scientific research

345

Vol-

Document No. Exhibit No. Description Paee

work to be conducted at Natz-
weiler concentration camp.

NO-1007 Pros. Ex. 413 Circular from Gluecks to con- 1-862

centration camp commandants,

27 April 1943, stating that in
the future only insane pris-
oners should be used for Ac-
tion “14 f 13” (euthanasia).

NO-1080 A, E, F. .Pros. Ex. 219 A,

E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 1-901

Kusmierczuk who underwent -902
sulfanilamide and bone exper-
iments while an inmate of
the Ravensbrueck concentra-
tion camp. ( See selections from
photographic evidence of the
prosecution.)

NO-1082 A, C .... Pros. Ex. 214 A, C . Exposures of the witness Jad- 1-903

wiga Dzido who underwent
sulfanilamide and bone experi-
ments while an inmate of
the Ravensbrueck concentra-
tion camp. ( See selections from
photographic evidence of the
prosecution.)

NO-1135 Pros. Ex. 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940,1-848

of the transfer of mental pa-
tients with list of transferred
patients attached.

NO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich Karl 1-676

Rascher, M.D., 31 December
1946, concerning the life and
activities of Dr. Sigmund
Rascher.

NO-1852 Pros. Ex. 456 Extract from report on medical 1-345

experiments addressed to Karl
Brandt.

NO-2734 Pros. Ex. 473 Extracts of letter from Grawitz 1-660

to Himmler, 7 September 1942,
and report on gas gangrene
experiments.

NO-3963 Pros. Ex. 528 Extracts from affidavit of Karl 1-710

Wilhelm Friedrich Tauboeck,

18 June 1947, concerning the
development of, and experi-
ments with sterilization drugs.

343-A-PS Pros. Ex. 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, 20 1-172

May 1942, regarding continua-
tion of experiments.

346

Vol-

Document No. Exhibit No. Description Paue

343-B-PS Pros. Ex. 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, 1-172

31 August 1942, acknowledg-
ing receipt of reports by
Rascher and Romberg on high-
altitude experiments.

615-PS Pros. Ex. 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop 1-845

of Limburg, to the Reich Min-
ister of Justice, 13 August

1941, protesting against the
killing of mentally ill people.

630-PS Pros. Ex. 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl 1-848

Brandt and Bouhler, 1 Sep-
tember 1939, charging them
with the execution of eutha-
nasia.

1553-PS Pros. Ex. 428 Extract from the field interroga- 1-865

tion of Kurt Gerstein, 26 April
1945, describing the mass gas-
sing of Jews and other “un-
desirables”.

1580- PS Pros. Ex. 107 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 1-253

26 February 1943, on freezing
experiments in the concentra-
tion camps Auschwitz and
Lublin.

1581- A-PS Pros. Ex. 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-144

Sievers, 21 March 1942, con-
cerning Rascher’s participa-
tion in high-altitude experi-
ments.

1582- PS Pros. Ex. 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-143

Rascher, undated, informing
him that prisoners would be
made available for high-alti-
tude research.

1602-PS Pros. Ex. 44 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-141

15 May 1941, concerning high-
altitude experiments on human
beings.

1609-PS Pros. Ex. 92 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 1-244

24 October 1942, and note by
Rudolf Brandt.

1611-PS Pros. Ex. 85 Letter from Himmler to Rascher 1-221

and Sievers, 22 September

1942, ordering rewarming in
freezing experiments through
physical warmth.

841684 — 49—23

347

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

1612-PS Pros. Ex. 79

1613-PS Pros. Ex. 90.

1616-PS Pros. Ex. 105

1618-PS Pros. Ex. 84

1619-PS Pros. Ex. 87

1696-PS Pros. Ex. 357

1971- A-PS Pros. Ex. 49

Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-176
Rascher, 13 December 1942,
and Himmler’s order assign-
ing Rascher to high-altitude
experiments.

Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-225

16 October 1942, transmitting
report on cooling experiments
on human beings {NO-^28).

Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-249

17 February 1943, and sum-
mary of experiments for re-
warming of chilled human be-
ings by animal warmth, 12
February 1943.

Intermediate report, 10 Septem- 1-220
ber 1942, on intense chilling
experiments in the Dachau
concentration camp.

Teletype from commandant of 1-223
Dachau concentration camp to
Rudolf Brandt, 7 October 1942,
stating that four women would
be available from Ravens-
brueck concentration camp for
Rascher’s experiments.

Letter from Dr. Conti to the 1-849
Mental Hospital in Kauf-
beuren, 16 November 1939,
requesting that questionnaires
(attached) be filled out for in-
dividual patients; letter from
the General Sick Transport
Company to the Mental Hos-
pital in Kaufbeuren, 12 May
1941, stating that the company
would remove mental patients ;
report from the Provincial As-
sociation for Social Welfare
in Swabia, 6 May 1941, that
all transferred patients had
died ; letter from Gaum, 24 No-
vember 1942, to Dr. Leinisch
stating that epileptics would
be made available for research.

Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 1-144
5 April 1942, and report, un-
dated, on high-altitude experi-
ments.

348

Document No.

Exhibit No.

Description

Vol-

Page

1971-B-PS Pros. Ex. 51 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 1-148

13 April 1942, requesting a
repetition of high-altitude ex-
periments on prisoners con-
demned to death.

1971-C-PS Pros. Ex. 50 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to 1-147

Rascher, 13 April 1942, re-
garding his success with high-
altitude experiments.

1971-D-PS Pros. Ex. 52 Teletype from Rascher to Rudolf 1-149

Brandt, 20 October 1942, re-
questing clarification on the
pardon granted by Himmler.

1971-E-PS Pros. Ex. 53 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to 1-149

Schnitzler, 21 October 1942,
concerning the pardon granted
by Himmler.

3896-PS Pros. Ex. 372 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 1-853

Ludwig Sprauer, 23 April
1946, concerning the organiza-
tion of the Euthanasia Pro-
gram.

Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Extracts from Harper’s Maga- II- 65

31 Ex. 18 zine entitled “Secrets by the

Thousand” by C. Lester
Walker.

Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Harrie- 1-455

42 Ex. 29 hausen, 9 January 1947, re-

garding use of patients in sea-
water experiments.

Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Statement of Professor Dr. Hans II- 95

60 Ex. 58 Luxenburger and Dr. Hans

Halbach concerning the report
on experiments on human
beings in world literature
(Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-
Freyseng Ex. 59).

Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Extracts from report on ex- II- 96

60a Ex. 59 periments on human beings

in world literature; excerpts
from various newspapers and
medical weeklies.

Karl Brandt 1. .. .Karl Brandt Ex. 1. Extract from “Life” magazine II- 95

concerning malaria experi-
ments on convicts in U.S.
penitentiaries.

Karl Brandt 12... Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther Scheib- 1-350

Ex. 11 er on his efforts to purchase

experimental animals in Spain
and bring them to Germany.

349

Document No. Exhibit No.

Karl Brandt 18... Karl Brandt

Ex. 15

Karl Brandt 19 . . . Karl Brandt

Ex. 16

Karl Brandt 23 . . . Karl Brandt

Ex. 19

Karl Brandt 101 . . Karl Brandt

Ex. 41

Vol-

Description Page

Extracts from the affidavit of 1-871
Dr. Werner Kirchert, 29 Jan-
uary 1947, stating that Karl
Brandt was not involved in the
Euthanasia Program.

Affidavit of Alfred Rueggeberg, 1-872
23 January 1947, concerning
radio discussions on eutha-
nasia.

Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, 1-873
18 January 1947, concerning
discussion of Karl Brandt and
Pastor Bodelschwingh on eu-
thanasia.

Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 1-351
21 April 1947, concerning the
urgency of experiments in
the field of chemical-warfare
agents and their countermeas-
ures.

Karl Brandt 103.. Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 1-352

Ex. 42 21 April 1947, concerning the

assignment of Karl Brandt in
connection with chemical war-
fare.

Karl Brandt 117 .. Karl Brandt Excerpts from the dissertation 11-103

Ex. 103 “Infection Experiments on Hu-

man Beings” by Alfred Heil-
brunn of the Hygiene Institute
of the Wuerzburg University,

1937, concerning experiments
on human beings in other
countries.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from report on the First 1-377

Oberheuser 1 Oberheuser Ex. 6. . Conference East of Consult-

ing Specialists on 18 and 19
May 1942 at the Military Med-
ical Academy, Berlin.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from report on the Third 1-378

Oberheuser 3 Oberheuser Ex. 10 . Conference East of Consult-

ing Specialists on 24 to 26 May
1943 at the Military Medical
Academy, Berlin.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from “Clinic and Prac- 1-405

Oberheuser 6 Oberheuser Ex. 9 . . tice”, weekly journal for the

Practicing Physician, regard-
ing bone transplantation.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 1-377

Oberheuser 21 Oberheuser Ex. 20 . Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14

March 1947.

350

Vol-

Ducument No. Exhibit No. Description Page

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 1-407

Oberheuser 21 . . . . Oberheuser Ex. 20 . Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14

March 1945, concerning scien-
tific experiments conducted at
the clinic of Hohenlychen.

Gebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 1-408

Oberheuser 22 Oberheuser Ex. 21 . Josef Koestler concerning Dr.

Gebhardt’s activities, 27 Feb-
ruary 1947.

ROSE 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extract from report of Profes- 1-298

sor Dr. E. Gildemeister con-
cerning the activities of the
Robert Koch Institute — Reich
Institute for the fight against
infectious diseases.

ROSE 16 Rose Ex. 12 Extracts from the affidavit of 1-581

Professor Otto Lenz, director
of the Robert Koch Institute
in Berlin.

ROSE 46 Rose Ex. 20 Extract from a certified state- 1-582

ment, 4 March 1947, of J.
Oerskov, M.D., director of the
State Serum Institute in Co-
penhagen.

ROSE 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. Hans 1-300

Luxenburger, 24 March 1947,
concerning Rose’s interest in
therapeutical malaria treat-
ments.

ROSE 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of 1-302

Professor Dr. Ernst Georg
Nauck, M.D., Hamburg 4,
Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for
nautical and tropical diseases.

Mrugowsky 115. . .Mrugowsky Extracts from the affidavit of 1-647

Ex. 108 Udo Von Woyrsch, 3 May

1947, concerning experiments
on combating injuries due to
phosphorus incendiary bombs.

Sievers 45 Sievers Ex. 46 ... . Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 1-752

Gisela Schmitz, 27 March 1947,
on Siever’s position in the
Ahnenerbe Society and his con-
nection with the skeleton col-
lection.

Sievers 54 Sievers Ex. 50 .... Regulations for the Commandos 1-754

(Einsatzkommandos) of the
Security Police and the Secur-
ity Service to be activated in
Stalags.

351

Vol-

Document No. Exhibit No. Description Page

Blome 1 Blome Ex. 8 Extracts from the affidavit of 1-778

Dr. Oskar Gundermann, 28
December 1946, stating that
Blome opposed the plan to
exterminate tubercular Poles
and that the plan was never
carried out.

Blome 14 Blome Ex. 6 Extracts from a report on the 1-777

German Tuberculosis Confer-
ence of 18 to 20 March 1937,
at Wiesbaden.

Pokorny 19 Pokorny Ex. 27... Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Weese, 1-874

19 March 1947, concerning use
of caladium seguinum for ster-
ilization.

TESTIMONIES

Dr. Leo Alexander . . .

Beiglboeck

Blome

Brack

Karl Brandt

Rudolf Brandt

Jadwiga Dzido

Gebhardt

Dr. Eugen Haagen . . .

Handloser

Dr. Friedrich Hielscher
Karl Hoellenrainer . . .
Dr. Andrew C. Ivy. . . .

Miss Karolewska

Eugen Kogon

Werner Leibbrandt . . .

Dr. Mennecke

Mrugowsky

Walter Neff

Romberg

Rose

Schmidt

Schroeder

Sievers

Stoehr

Vieweg

Vollhardt

Vol-

Page

1-386, 417
1-468
1-780
1-732, 876
I-II-506, 892, 900
29

1-183, 757
1-381

1-388, 667
1-606

I- 265
11-30

1-456

I-II-994

42, 60, 82, 110
1-409

1-583, 637, 648, 993

II- 80
1-875

I-II-595, 651, 688
56, 66
1-177, 260
1-186

I-II-308, 586, 973
69, 77, 118
1-890
1-269
1-274, 682
1-664
1-303
1-474

352

“The Milch Case”

CASE NO. 2

MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. II

The United States of America
— against —

Erhard Milch

INTRODUCTION

The trial of Erhard Milch, formerly a Field Marshal in the
German Air Force, is officially designated United States of Amer-
ica vs. Erhard Milch (Case No. 2), and was heard by Military
Tribunal II in the Palace of Justice at Nuernberg. The proceed-
ings lasted from 13 November 1946 to 17 April 1947, in the
course of which period the Court convened 39 times. The prosecu-
tion consumed 8 and the defense 28 trial days. A chronological
table of the trial follows:

Indictment filed
Indictment served
Arraignment

Prosecution opening statement
Defense opening statement
Prosecution and defense
closing statements
Judgment
Sentence

Affirmation of sentence by
Military Governor, U.S.

Zone of Occupation
Order of the U.S. Supreme
Court denying writ of
habeas corpus

The prosecution introduced into evidence 161 written exhibits,
some of which contained several documents. The defense intro-
duced 51 written exhibits. The Tribunal heard the oral testimony
of 3 witnesses who were called by the prosecution; 27 witnesses
called by the defense were heard by the full court, and 3 before
a commissioner. One witness was called by the Tribunal on its
own motion. The defendant Milch testified at length in his own
behalf.

The members of the Tribunal, and prosecution and defense
counsel, are listed on the ensuing pages. Prosecution counsel were
assisted in preparing the case by Walter Rapp, Chief of the Evi-
dence Division, Norbert Barr and Bevenuto Selcke, interrogators,
and Robert Blakeslie, Nancy Fenstermacher, and Tempa Altman
Watson, research and documentary analysts.

13 November 1946

14 November 1946
20 December 1946
2 January 1947

27 January 1947
25 March 1947

16 April 1947

17 April 1947
17 June 1947

20 October 1947

355

The material selected for this volume was principally com-
piled by Mr. Paul H. Gantt as case editor, working under the
general supervision of Mr. Drexel A. Sprecher, Deputy Chief
Counsel and Director of Publications, Office, United States Chief of
Counsel for War Crimes. Catherine W. Bedford, Henry Bux-
baum, Emilie Evand, Gertrude Ferencz, Helga Lund, Gwendoline
Niebergall, and Johanna K. Reischer assisted in selecting, compil-
ing, editing and indexing the numerous papers.

John H. E. Fried, Special Legal Consultant to the Tribunals,
reviewed and approved the selection and arrangement of the ma-
terial as the designated representative of the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals.

Final compilation and editing of the manuscript for printing was
administered by the War Crimes Division, Office of the Judge
Advocate General, under the direct supervision of Richard A.
Olbeter, Chief, Special Projects Branch, with Alma Soller as editor,
Amelia Rivers as assistant editor and John W. Mosenthal as
research analyst.

356

ORDER CONSTITUTING TRIBUNAL II

OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U.S.)

APO 742

16 December 1946

General Orders )

No. 86 \

PURSUANT TO MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7

1. Effective as of 14 December 1946, pursuant to Military Government
Ordinance No. 7, 24 October 1946, entitled “Organization and Powers of Cer-
tain Military Tribunals”, there is hereby constituted, Military Tribunal II.

2. The following are designated as members of Military Tribunal II:

Robert M. Toms
Fitzroi D. Phillips 1
Michael A. Musmanno
John J. Speight

Presiding Judge

Judge

Alternate Judge

8. The Tribunal shall convene at Nurnberg, Germany, to hear such cases as
may be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or by his duly designated
representative.

By command of LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAY:

C. K. GAILEY

Brigadier General, GSC

Chief of Staff

Official:

G. H. GARDE
Lieutenant Colonel, AGD
Adjutant General

Seal:

Office of Military Government
for Germany (U. S.)

Distribution : “B” plus

2— AG MRU USFET

1 OMGUS General Orders No. 5, 21 January 1947, corrected spelling to Fitzroy D. Phillips.

357

TRIBUNAL II— CASE TWO

. Donald Phillips; Robert M . Toms, presiding; Michael A. M usmanno; John J. Speight, alternate.

Defendant Erhard Milch with his counsel, Dr. Friedrich Bergold.

•2 o

- CO

c £
~~ *<s>

o O

O Irf
*2 ^

~ ^
8 CO

O' co

sg 2
•2 ^
■§ S
S S

co g
O

o ^
<co K -'l
£ ^
?S ’-■-o

o o
<-> se
_ ->.>

CO -O

<*} O

Mr. Clark Denny, Chief Trial Counsel of Case II .

MEMBERS OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL II

Robert M. Toms, Presiding

Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan
Fitzroy Donald Phillips, Member,

Judge of the Superior Court for the 13th Judicial District of the State of
North Carolina

Michael A. Musmanno, Member,

United States Naval Reserve, on military leave from Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

John Joshua Speight, Alternate,

Prominent member of the Bar of the State of Alabama

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES GENERAL

Judge Richard D. Dixon From 20 December 1946 to 25 March 1947

Major Mills C. Hatfield From 16 April 1947 to 17 April 1947

PROSECUTION COUNSEL

CHIEF OF COUNSEL:

Brigadier General Telford Taylor

CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL:

Mr. Clark Denney

ASSISTANT TRIAL COUNSEL:

Mr. James S. Conway
Miss Dorothy M. Hunt
Mr. Henry T. King, Jr.

Mr. Raymond J. McMahon, Jr.

Mr. Maurice C. Myers

DEFENSE COUNSEL

Dr. Friedrich Bergold
Main Counsel
Dr. Werner Milch *
Assistant Counsel

♦ Brother of the defendant Milch.

359

I. INDICTMENT

The United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Tay-
lor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent
said Government in the prosecution of war criminals, charges the
defendant Erhard Milch with the commission of war crimes and
crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No.
10,* duly enacted by the Allied Control Council on 20 December
1945. The defendant Milch between 1939 and 1945 was State Sec-
retary in the [Reich] Air Ministry (Staatssekretaer im Reichsluft-
fahrt ministerium) , Inspector General of the Air Force (Ge-
neralinspekteur der Luftwaffe) , Deputy to the Commander in Chief
of the Air Force (Stellvertreter des Oberbefehlshabers der Luft-
waffe), and Member of the Nazi Party (Mitglied der NSDAP).
The defendant Milch was also Field Marshal in the Luft-
waffe (Generalfeldmarschall in der Luftwaffe) 1940-45, Aircraft
Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister) 1941-44, Member of the
Central Planning Board (Mitglied der “Zentralen Planung”) 1942-
1945, and Chief of the Jaegerstab 1944-1945. The war crimes
and crimes against humanity charged herein against the defend-
ant Milch include deportation, enslavement and mistreatment of
millions of persons, participation in criminal medical experiments
upon human beings, and murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,
atrocities, and other inhumane acts.

COUNT ONE

1. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch
unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as de-
fined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was
a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting
part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises involving
slave labor and deportation to slave labor of the civilian popula-
tions of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Hungary, and other coun-
tries and territories occupied by the German Armed Forces, in
the course of which millions of persons were enslaved, deported,
ill-treated, terrorized, tortured, and murdered.

2. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch
unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as de-
fined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was a
principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting
part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises involving
the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a
direct relation with war operations, including the manufacture
and transportation of arms and munitions, in the course of which

* See vol. I, this series, pref. pp. Ill thru XXVIII for basic papers.

360

murders, cruelties, ill-treatment, and other inhumane acts were
committed against members of the armed forces of nations then at
war with the German Reich and who were in custody of the
German Reich in the exercise of belligerent control.

3. In the execution of the plans and enterprises charged in para-
graphs 1 and 2 of this count, millions of persons were unlawfully
subjected to forced labor under cruel and inhumane conditions
which resulted in widespread suffering. At least 5,000,000 workers
were deported to Germany. The conscription of labor was accom-
plished in many cases by drastic and violent methods. Workers
destined for the Reich were sent under guard to Germany, often
packed in trains without adequate heat, food, clothing, or sanitary
facilities ; other inhabitants of occupied countries were conscripted
and compelled to work in their own countries to assist the German
war economy and on fortifications and military installations. The
resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely
disregarded in the execution of the said plans and enterprises.
Prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to war
operations, including work in munitions factories, loading bomb-
ers, carrying ammunition, and manning antiaircraft guns. The
treatment of slave laborers and prisoners of war was based on the
principle that they should be fed, sheltered, and treated in such
a way as to exploit them to the greatest possible extent at the
lowest expenditure.

4. The defendant Milch from 1942 to 1945 was a member of the
Central Planning Board which had supreme authority for the
scheduling of production and the allocation and development of
raw materials in the German war economy. The Central Planning
Board determined the labor requirements of industry, agriculture,
and all other phases of German war economy, and made requisi-
tions for and allocations of such labor. The defendant Milch had
full knowledge of the illegal manner in which foreign laborers
were conscripted and prisoners of war utilized to meet such requi-
sitions, and of the unlawful and inhumane conditions under which
they were exploited. He attended the meetings of the Central
Planning Board, participated in its decisions and in the formula-
tion of basic policies with reference to the exploitation of such
labor, advocated the increased use of forced labor and prisoners
of war to expand war production, and urged that cruel and repres-
sive measures be utilized to procure and exploit such labor.

5. During the years 1939-1945 the defendant Milch, as State
Secretary in the Air Ministry, Inspector General of the Air Force,
Deputy to the Commander in Chief of the Air Force, Field Mar-

361

shal in the Luftwaffe, Aircraft Master General, and Chief of the
Jaegerstab, had responsibility for the development and produc-
tion of arms and munitions for the German Air Force. The defend-
ant Milch exploited foreign laborers and prisoners of war in the
arms, aircraft, and munitions factories under his control, made
requisitions for and allocations of such labor within the aircraft
industry, and personally directed that cruel and repressive meas-
ures be adopted towards such labor.

6. Pursuant to the order of the defendant Milch, prisoners of
war who had attempted escape were murdered on or about 15
February 1944.

7. The said war crimes constitute violations of international
conventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 46, and 52 of the
Hague Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 31 of the
Prisoner-of-War Convention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and cus-
toms of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived
from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal
laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and
Article II of Control Council Law No. 10.

COUNT TWO

8. Between March 1942 and May 1943 the defendant Milch un-
lawfully, wilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as de-
fined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was
a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting
part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises involving
medical experiments without the subjects’ consent, upon members
of the armed forces and civilians of nations then at war with the
German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich
in the exercise of belligerent control, in the course of which ex-
periments the defendant Milch, together with divers other persons,
committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, and other in-
humane acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to,
the following:

(A) HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS. From about March
1942 to about August 1942 experiments were conducted at the
Dachau concentration camp for the benefit of the German Air
Force to investigate the limits of human endurance and existence
at extremely high altitudes. The experiments were carried out in
a low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric conditions and
pressure prevailing at high altitudes (up to 68,000 feet) could be
duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the low-pres-
sure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude therein was

362

raised. Many victims died as a result of these experiments and
others suffered grave injury, torture, and ill-treatment.

( B ) FREEZING EXPERIMENTS. From about August 1942
to about May 1943 experiments were conducted at the Dachau
concentration camp primarily for the benefit of the German Air
Force to investigate the most effective means of treating persons
who had been severely chilled or frozen. In one series of experi-
ments the subjects were forced to remain in a tank of ice water for
periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor developed in a short time.
Numerous victims died in the course of these experiments. After
the survivors were severely chilled, rewarming was attempted by
various means. In another series of experiments, the subjects
were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below
freezing. The victims screamed with pain as parts of their bodies
froze.

9. The said war crimes constitute violations of international
conventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 46 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Prisoner-of-
War Convention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war,
the general principles of criminal law as derived from the crim-
inal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and of Article
II, of Control Council Law No. 10.

COUNT THREE

10. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch
unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly committed crimes against
humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10,
in that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took
a consenting part in, and was connected with plans and enter-
prises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor of
German nationals and nationals of other countries in the course
of which millions of persons were enslaved, deported, ill-treated,
terrorized, tortured, and murdered. The particulars of these
crimes are set forth in count one of this indictment and are in-
corporated herein by reference.

11. Between March 1942 and May 1943 the defendant Milch
unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly committed crimes against
humanity as defined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10
in that he was principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a
consenting part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises
involving medical experiments, without the subjects’ consent, upon
German nationals and nationals of other countries, in the course

841584 — 49—24

363

of which experiments the defendant Milch, together with divers
other persons, committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,
atrocities, and other inhumane acts. The particulars of such ex-
periments are set forth in count two of this indictment and are
incorporated herein by reference.

12. The said crimes against humanity constitute violations of
international conventions, the laws and customs of war, the gen-
eral principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws
of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in
which such crimes were committed, and Article II of Control
Council Law No. 10.

WHEREFORE, this indictment is filed with the Secretary Gen-
eral of the Military Tribunals and the charges herein made against
the above-named defendant are hereby presented to the Military
Tribunals.

Telford Taylor
Brigadier General, USA
Chief of Counsel for War Crimes
Acting on Behalf of the United States of America

Nuernberg, 13 November 1946

364

II. ARRAIGNMENT*

The Marshal: Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God
save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

Presiding Judge Toms: The Marshal will ascertain whether the
defendant, Erhard Milch, is present in Court.

The Marshal: May it please your Honors, the defendant is
present in the Court.

Presiding Judge Toms : Is counsel for the defendant, Dr. Ber-
gold, also present?

The Marshal: Dr. Bergold is also present in the courtroom.

Presiding Judge Toms : Prosecution may proceed with the ar-
raignment by reading the indictment.

[At this point Mr. Clark Denney read the indictment. See p. 360.]

Presiding Judge Toms: The defendant will stand. You have
heard the indictment just read?

Erhard Milch : Yes.

Presiding Judge Toms: And it has been translated into the
German language which you understand?

Erhard Milch: Yes.

Presiding Judge Toms: For more than 30 days you have had in
your possession a copy of this indictment translated into the
German language?

Erhard Milch : Yes.

Presiding Judge Toms: You have also had the benefit of Dr.
Bergold’s counsel for at least 30 days?

Erhard Milch : Yes.

Presiding Judge Toms: Now then to this indictment how do
you plead, guilty or not guilty?

Erhard Milch : Not guilty.

Presiding Judge Toms: The Secretary General will enter upon
the records of the Court the defendant’s plea of not guilty. You
may be seated.

The Tribunal has set Thursday, the second day of January
1947 for the commencement of the trial of this action. Will the
United States be ready on that date?

Mr. Denney : The Government will be ready at that time, your
Honor.

Presiding Judge Toms : Dr. Bergold, will you be ready to pro-
ceed with the trial on the second of January?

Dr. Bergold: Yes.

*******

* Tr. p. 7.

365

III. OPENING STATEMENTS

A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution 1

Mr. Denney: May it please your Honors, this defendant is
Erhard Milch, Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe, Inspector General
of the Luftwaffe, State Secretary in the Air Ministry, General-
luftzeugmeister, sole representative of the Wehrmacht on the
Central Planning Board, Chief of the Jaegerstab, 2 and member of
the Nazi Party.

This man is accused of war crimes and crimes against hu-
manity in that he took part in the program for the enslavement
and ill-treatment of the civilian population of vast territories con-
quered by the armed forces of Germany and in the employment
of prisoners of war in tasks forbidden by the laws and customs
of war. He is also accused of the torture and murder of concen-
tration camp inmates and prisoners of war who were made the
unwilling subjects of savage and fatal medical experiments.

The life of Erhard Milch is a story of personal and professional
betrayal. A man of high intelligence, of great executive ability,
he misused these talents to dedicate them to a scheme for con-
quest and a plan for the enslavement of the world. The 10 years
of military service of the defendant from the age of 18 to 28 which
took him through the First World War were a perfect prepara-
tion for the tasks to come. From 1915 to 1919, Milch was a scout,
observer, adjutant and squadron leader in the German Air Force.
At the very infancy of military aviation, the defendant began an
association which was to last through his entire public career. It
was at this time that he learned the needs and the problems of
flying men, a knowledge which was to stand him in such good
stead in his work as the founder of the Luftwaffe.

The defendant never dissociated himself from the aims and
ideals of German militarism. He became one of the silent army
of men who remembered, hated, and hoped; but unlike many
others, this man did not sit idly by. He did not wait passively
for Germany to rise again, he devoted his best efforts towards
that end. In 1921, only 1 year after his discharge from the army,
we find him working as chief of air operations [flights] in the
new business of commercial aviation.

There is no necessity to fill out in detail the successive steps in
the defendant’s rise in civilian air transportation — a few broad
strokes suffice. The next significant event in his career came in
1925 when he joined the state-sponsored Lufthansa which within
3 years he was to form into the nucleus of a new air force. It is

1 Opening statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript.

2 See section IV A3, p. 624 ff.

366

no euphemism that he was called the Father of German Air
Transportation.

When Hitler came into power in 1933, Milch acceded to the
requests of both Goering and Hitler and assumed the additional
duty of State Secretary in the Air Ministry. It was understood
from the start, and it was confirmed in 1937, that Milch would
succeed Goering as Chief of the German Air Force in the event
of the latter's death or withdrawal. By the time the new Luft-
waffe had publicly emerged from such embryos as the Air Sport
League, the Air Defense League, and the Flying [Flieger] Hitler
Youth, the defendant had become a Generalleutnant (the equiva-
lent of the American major general). The honors which followed:
field marshal in the Luftwaffe in 1940, which was gained from
2 months' participation in the invasion of Norway; Generalluft-
Zeugmeister in 1941; member of the Central Planning Board in
1942; Chief of the Jaegerstab in 1944, were proof alike of the
evil genius of Erhard Milch and of his complete compatibility with
the Nazi ambitions and methods.

This defendant became a member of the Nazi Party in May
1933. His work in the Party was important. He was indeed one of
the little group of specialists of whom Mr. Justice Jackson, in
his closing address before the International Military Tribunal,
aptly said:

“It is doubtful whether the Nazi master plan could have suc-
ceeded without their specialized intelligence which they so will-
ingly put at its command. They (speaking of Goering, Keitel,
Jodi, and the rest) did so with knowledge of its announced aims
and methods and continued their services after practice had
confirmed the direction in which they were tending. Their su-
periority to the average run of Nazi mediocrity is not their ex-
cuse. It is their condemnation." *

Various Germans allowed themselves to be absorbed into the
Nazi Party for a variety of reasons. Depression, financial and
business betterment, ambition, discouragement with the previous
political situation, and human weakness in the face of terrorism,
all played their part in the recruitment of the Nazi machine. There
were few cases in which a man made as clear, as deliberate, and
as discreditable a choice of Nazism as did Milch.

The high esteem in which the defendant was held by Hitler and
his position within the inner circle of Nazi militarists can be seen
from the fact that he was one of a party of fourteen of Hitler's
highest and most trusted officers who attended a conference in the
new Reich Chancellory on 23 May 1939, at which Hitler made

* Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XIX, pp. 417-18, Nuremberg, 1947,

367

known to his military chiefs his plans and objectives. ( L-79 .)

All in all, two points stand out in even a quick survey of Milch’s
career: First, he never accepted the defeat of Germany in the
First World War; his life between the wars was devoted to the
work of placing Germany in a position to challenge the world in
the matter of air supremacy ; and second, he was a man who was
unlikely to allow either difficulty or honor to stand in the way of
the accomplishment of his purpose — the objectives of the Nazi
Party. If these characteristics are borne in mind, much of the
defendant’s fanaticism and the unbelievable savagery with which
he adhered to the Nazi plan for conquest at the expense of all
values of human decency may be seen as the natural consequences
of the acts of a man with his criminal philosophy.

We have then, at the outbreak of the war this man, already
within the inner circle, already devoted to the Nazi scheme of
things and quite essential to their fulfillment, with a record of
organization and with the work of preparation behind him —
poised with his companions for the kill. We see the air armadas,
which were the labor of his love, helping to shatter Poland within
18 days, helping to reduce the Lowlands to smoking ruins within
a few days’ time, assisting in the subjugation of the French mili-
tary machine and in driving the British from the continent in a
period of a few weeks. We see the hordes of the Fatherland racing
on and on with the air arm always overhead, preparing the way,
until Germany had overrun a territory from the Normandy Coast
to Moscow, and from the North Sea to El Alamein.

Then began the occupation, the next step in the plan of the
Third Reich — an empire which was to last a thousand years. Over
an entire continent there spread the deadly rigor of a “Pax
Germanica” in which there was to be one citizen class, one race
of supermen, and the balance, one class of slaves. At first the
occupation overlords maintained the appearance of legality. They
gave receipts for the property they plundered, they offered in-
ducements to the laborers they shanghaied, they went through the
mockery of signing contracts which were both illusory and fraud-
ulent. But even this sham disappeared as the war went on, and
as early as 1942, the German occupation appeared in public as
the ugly thing it was, complete with armed recruiters, military
escorts on deportation trains and prison camps for the workers
brought into Germany. Mr. Justice Jackson, in his opening ad-
dress on behalf of the United States of America before the Inter-
national Military Tribunal,* vividly described the character and
extent of the slave-labor program in the following words:

• Ibid., vol. II, pp. 139-140.

368

“Perhaps the deportation to slave labor was the most horrible
and extensive slaving operation in history. On few other subjects
is our evidence so abundant and so damaging. In a speech made
on 25 January 1944 the defendant Frank, Governor General
of Poland, boasted, ‘I have sent 1,300,000 Polish workers into
the Reich/ ( 059-PS , y. 2.) The defendant Sauckel reported
that ‘out of the 5 million foreign workers who arrived in Ger-
many not even 200,000 came voluntarily/ * * * Children of
10 to 14 years were impressed into service * * *.

“When enough labor was not forthcoming, prisoners of war
were forced into war work in flagrant violation of interna-
tional conventions ( 016-PS ). Slave labor came from France,
Belgium, Holland, Italy, and the East. Methods of recruitment
were violent ( R-12U , 018-PS, 204-PS). The treatment of these
slave laborers was stated in general terms, not difficult to trans-
late into concrete deprivations, in a letter to the defendant
Rosenberg from the defendant Sauckel, which stated:

“ ‘All the men’ (prisoners of war and foreign civilian
workers) ‘must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way
as to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest
conceivable degree of expenditure * * *' (016-PS)”.

Working as we do every day with crimes of unbelievable
enormity, we are apt to become quite deadened to the hideous
nature of specific crimes. It is, therefore, well to stop and consider
the particular offenses with which this man stands charged.

Crimes are best evaluated in terms of the rights they violate.
The evil, slavery, which is the deprivation of another’s liberty,
is best judged through a consideration of its opposite good, free-
dom. Freedom is, to an extent, properly regarded as the symbol
of human progress, the measure of civilization. Much of man’s
history can be expressed in terms of his fight for freedom. Man’s
personal freedom is his most precious prerogative, the exercise
of his free will is his distinctive function. The building of a legal
structure to protect the freedom of the individual is the basic
purpose of good government. Men have lived for freedom, worked
for it, fought for it, and died for it.

It is precisely because of their destructive effects on the free-
dom of the individual that governments such as the Nazi German
State are so hatefully and essentially evil. The Nazi rise to power
is a story of duress which ripened into slavery, first for the people
within Germany and then for those in the lands she conquered.

369

The enforced labor program was no expedient forced upon
Germany by the exigencies of war. It was a basic concept of the
Nazi scheme and the permanent destiny of those who would come
under the German yoke.

It is most natural, therefore, that Control Council Law No. 10,
which was enacted for the guidance of this and other tribunals
which are set up for the trial of the principals in the crime of
Nazi Germany, should deal in very severe terms with that most
Nazi of all crimes — slavery. Article II, paragraph 1 (sec. &) spe-
cifically names among the enumerated war crimes the ill-treat-
ment or deportation to slave labor of civilian populations from oc-
cupied territory and the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of
war. Paragraph 1 (sec. c) specifies as a crime against humanity,
deportation of civilian populations. Article II, paragraphs 2 and
3 proclaim that anyone taking a principal or consenting part in
these crimes, or belonging to a plan or enterprise for the com-
mission of these crimes, is guilty of an offense for which the
death penalty may be prescribed.

The prosecution will prove that Milch was a principal in the
deportation into slave labor of civilian populations from occupied
territories. It will show that he was involved in the murder and
ill-treatment of prisoners of war. Evidence will be presented which
will prove that he was engaged in plans and enterprises which
directly involved the use of slave labor. We will show that this
man was as much concerned with the employment of slave labor
as was any man in Germany. In his positions as a member of the
Central Planning Board, as Generalluftzeugmeister, and as Chief
of the Jaegerstab, he had full opportunity to hear all the grim
details of the exploitation of slave labor. He participated in de-
cisions and formulated basic policies with reference to its use,
and over and above all this he showed his personal animosity and
his gratuitous fanaticism in constantly urging the most repres-
sive and cruel measures in the procurement and exploitation of
foreign workers.

During the course of this trial, an attempt will be made to dis-
tinguish among that which this defendant did as Generalluftzeug-
meister, as Chief of the Jaegerstab, as State Secretary for Air,
and as a member of the Central Planning Board. At times it will
be difficult, if not impossible, to state in just which capacity he
was acting at a particular time. We must emphasize now that
it is not essential to the proof of this case that we should be able
always to specify the exact capacity in which the defendant acted.
The multiplicity of his connection with the slave-labor program
is his greatest condemnation, and it is because he knew so much
and did so much that there can be no excuse for him.

370

Erhard Milch operated at a policy level high in the chain of
command above the work boss and the concentration camp guard.
We need not show him driving the workers to their tasks or
crowding them into the hovels in which they lived. We are not
primarily concerned with the minute details of the slave-labor
program which were carried out by minions who obeyed men like
the defendant. We were dealing with a planner of a great crime,
and it has not been difficult for the law to seek out and punish
those who plan as well as those who obey. The law would indeed be
derelict if only those were punished who pulled the trigger to kill,
or, comparably speaking, ran a slave camp in which people
worked an 84-hour week and dragged out a miserable existence
under conditions from which death was welcome relief.

This defendant cannot plead in truth that he did not know that
the use of slave labor was wrong. He cannot use even the tech-
nical excuse, so common among the Nazis, that this was not
illegal because the Nazi law authorized it. Official sanction of
slavery would have been a law so evil that even the Nazi masters
dared not proclaim it. A search through the mass of decrees
and pronouncements which passed for law during the regime of
Adolf Hitler fails to reveal sanction for slavery of foreign labor-
ers. On the other hand, certain prohibitory laws survived from
a more respectable day.

Paragraph 234 of the German Criminal Law (published in 1942
in Munich and Berlin, pp. 364-365) provides that “whoever
seizes another by ruse, threat or force in order to expose him
in a state of helplessness, or to deliver him into slavery, bondage,
or a foreign military or naval service shall be punished for
kidnapping by confinement in a penitentiary.” This law was in
force during the Nazi regime and was published in the most
recent edition of German Criminal Law which we have been
able to find.

That maltreatment was commonplace in the course of the en-
forced labor program in Germany is well known; that starvation,
murder, and all types of personal abuses took place is notorious.
All of this was found as a fact in the decision of the International
Military Tribunal. There can be no question of the responsibility
of the defendant for the murders and privations which were the
inevitable byproduct of the slave-labor program.

But we need not follow the crime of slave labor down to its
last detail in order to show the defendant as the murderer he
was. We can and will prove that he directly participated in crimes
of which murder was often the intended and on numerous occa-
sions the inevitable result.

The prosecution charges, and will prove, that he took an im-

371

portant, responsible, and essential part in the practice of experi-
ments upon human beings carried out against their wills and in
callous disregard of the lives of its victims.

Cut then to bare essentials the charges set forth in para-
graphs 8 and 9 of count two of the indictment and in paragraph
11 of count three can be summarized by the statement that the
defendant was officially connected with and took a consenting
part in enterprises in which criminal medical experiments were
performed upon involuntary subjects.

The nature and extent of these experiments and the fact that
they were conducted for the specific benefit of the Luftwaffe
will be shown in some detail. We will prove that the defendant
was the responsible Luftwaffe officer with ultimate supervisory
authority over the experiments. The Court will see that through-
out the duration of these experiments, the defendant was con-
stantly treated by all concerned as the ultimate authority within
the Luftwaffe in control of the experimental equipment and in
charge of certain personnel who were actively engaged in them.

Evidence will be presented which will prove that the defend-
ant was thoroughly informed of the criminal activities of Dr.
Rascher, the experimenter, and his associates. We will prove
that a conference was held at the defendant’s office, that films
were shown there, that communications were sent to him from
highest Nazi sources which specifically referred to opposition
on the part of “narrow-minded doctors” to the experiments. A
web of evidence will be adduced to portray the defendant, as he
really was, an active partner in crime. We will show that the de-
fendant authorized the initiation of freezing experiments and
that he ordered an extension of the high-altitude experiments
for a period of 2 months, during which extended period a num-
ber of experimental subjects died.

At the conclusion of the evidence with respect to the medical
experiments upon human beings there will remain no doubt that
Erhard Milch was a knowing, willing, and active participant in
murder.

Throughout the trial the prosecution will place before the
Court a number of statements which will portray him as a man
who believed no tears should be shed for the victims of total
war when German soldiers every day were making the ultimate
sacrifice for the Fatherland. This man was not a hard-headed,
single-minded production chief whose only problem was to get
things done and whose rash statements were the impetuous re-
marks of an over-worked executive. Milch will be shown as a
man who boasted of his responsibility in the hanging of pris-
oners of war, who urged that any effort on the part of foreign

372

workers to strike during enemy action should be met with rifle
fire, who offered protection to slave supervisors who should mis-
treat their subjects. We will show that he was not too busy to
inform himself fully of everything with which he was officially
connected and that over and above this he went out of his way
to learn the most minute details of matters with which he was
very remotely connected.

And now a brief word about the type of evidence with which
the prosecution will prove its case. It must be borne in mind
that we are not concerned with a single localized incident or
with a series of such incidents. The proof which we must show
cannot be brought forth from the daily events of ordered society.
It must be drawn from the cold ashes of a broken nation. The
documents which will be brought into Court have been taken from
all corners of a continent. They have one common feature which
elevates them in the hierarchy of evidence to a place above the
story of sincere but fallible eyewitnesses. These documents are
official German records, some of them records of the defendant’s
own organizations. In some cases they bear the defendant’s sig-
nature or his handwritten initials. In every case they are au-
thentic records compiled by Germans, accurate because there
was no reason for falsification or exaggeration, thorough because
of a national fetish for attention to detail, reliable because they
were made at times when the German fortunes of war were
high and their scriveners had no reason to fear that one day
they would be confronted with their hand-made records of
criminality.

It would seem that at this point there should be some dis-
cussion of the various organizations with which the defendant
was connected.

We are concerned principally with that part of the OKW
(Oberkommando der Wehrmacht), Supreme Command of the
Armed Forces, known as the OKL (Oberkommando der Luft-
waffe), the High Command of the German Air Force. The Chief
of the OKL was Reich Marshal Hermann Goering. His Inspector
General and State Secretary in the Air Ministry was the de-
fendant Erhard Milch. As such, from July 1940, he held the rank
of field marshal (comparable to the American rank of general
of the armies).*

The other two branches of the OKW with which we are
incidentally concerned were the OKH (Oberkommando des
Heeres), High Command of the Army, and the OKM (Ober-
kommando der Marine), High Command of the Navy. The army

* See Table of comparative ranks, p. 331.

373

was commanded by Field Marshal von Brauchitsch until Decem-
ber 1941, at which time it was taken over by Hitler. The navy
was commanded by Grand Admiral [Admiral of the Fleet] Raeder
until 1943, thereafter by Grand Admiral Doenitz.

The Luftwaffe Medical Service came under this defendant in
his capacity as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe. The Medical
Service was headed by Dr. Erich Hippke until January 1944;
thereafter it was headed by Dr. Oskar Schroeder.

There was an experimental institute in Berlin called the DVL
which was a technical research institution for aero-research.
This was subordinate to the defendant in his position as General-
luftzeugmeister.

We now turn to the Central Planning Board. This was estab-
lished by a Goering decree, pursuant to a Hitler order of 22 April,
1942. The Board consisted of Albert Speer, Erhard Milch, and
Paul Koerner. Later, by a supplementary Goering decree, in
September 1943, Walter Funk was added to the Board. Speer
and Milch were the dominant members, and Koerner and Funk
played comparatively minor roles. The Central Planning Board
was, in effect, a consolidation of all controls over German
war production. The Board was found by the International Mili-
tary Tribunal to have “had supreme authority for the scheduling
of German production and the allocation and development of raw
materials. * * *” * Hand in hand with this goes the corollary
of the procurement and allocation of labor. Reich Marshal Goering,

in his decree of 22 April, 1942, stated in part “It (the Central

Planning Board) encompasses that which is fundamental and vital.
It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the execution of
its directives”. The Central Planning Board requisitioned labor
from Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands would be sup-
plied by foreign forced labor, and the Board determined the basic
allocation of this labor within the German war economy. Sauckel
was the servant of the Central Planning Board in the procure-
ment of slave labor. There are records of some 50-odd meetings of
the Board between the time of its establishment in 1942, and
1945. The defendant was present at all but a few of these meet-
ings and on occasion his was the dominant voice. The Interna-
tional Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning Board
determined the total number of laborers needed for German in-
dustry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deporta-
tion from occupied territories.

It is worthy of note that Speer was appointed Reich Minister
for Armaments and Munitions on 2 February 1942, Sauckel

* Trial of Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 331.

374

was appointed Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation on
21 March 1942, and the Central Planning Board was created
on 22 April 1942.

Turning now to the defendant’s position as Chief of the Jaeger-
stab. The Jaegerstab was formed pursuant to a Speer decree of
1 March 1944, for the purpose of increasing the production of
German fighter aircraft, which, because of effective and heavy
raids by strategic air forces of Great Britain and America, had
suffered a production decrease to a figure below 1,000 planes a
month.

Because of this reduced production of fighter planes, Milch had
requested Speer to establish a commission to deal with this most
vital problem. The commission was created and Speer and Milch
were joint chiefs. The Jaegerstab was actually a group of ex-
perts, drawn from the various phases of German industry and
supplemented by representatives of the various Ministries con-
cerned, such as Labor, Supply, Transportation, Power and Energy,
Raw Materials, Health, Repairs, and so forth.

Meetings were held almost daily, in the beginning at the Air
Ministry in Berlin and later at Tempelhof airfield in the same
city. The Jaegerstab functions were these: the quick repair of
plants damaged in bombing or strafing operations, the dispersal
of German aircraft plants, and the construction of underground
factories for aircraft production.

As it was with the Central Planning Board, so it was with
the Jaegerstab, a major problem was the procurement of slave
labor. The workers for the Jaegerstab were procured from the
Sauckel Ministry, from occupied countries, and from the SS, who
supplied concentration camp inmates and Hungarian Jews.

So successful was the work of the Jaegerstab that Speer de-
cided to enlarge its functions to include other phases of armament
and munitions production. Accordingly, on 1 August 1944, he
issued a decree expanding the functions of the Jaegerstab and
changing its name to Ruestungsstab.

The position of Generalluftzeugmeister was taken over by
the defendant in 1941, following the death of Colonel General
Ernst Udet. In this post the defendant was in charge of all tech-
nical research in the Luftwaffe and his was the over-all respon-
sibility for all aircraft production. As such he spoke for the Luft-
waffe in the meetings of the Central Planning Board and in con-
ferences with Hitler. It is obvious that here again the procure-
ment of labor was a primary consideration for one who had the
complete responsibility for keeping the Luftwaffe in the air.

In the trial before the International Military Tribunal, it was

375

determined that 5,000,000 laborers were deported to Germany.
Of these, 4,800,000 did not come voluntarily.

The evidence will show that the defendant’s responsibility was
as great, if not greater, than was Sauckel’s. Erhard Milch raised
his voice in demanding that foreign labor be procured by any
methods and in advocating that cruel and repressive measures be
taken by those in charge of these laborers. There is no record
of any utterance by him, which can be offered as a mitigating
circumstance to his complete complicity in the criminality of the
slave-labor program.

The evidence on the altitude and freezing experiments will
reveal him as a man completely without concern for the welfare
and lives of the wretched, unwilling victims of the criminal tor-
tures conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe.

The series of trials, of which this is one, if it is to serve its
purpose in exposing and punishing the abuses of Nazidom, must
strike hard at the cores of savage German militarism and its
technical counterpart, industry for war. Erhard Milch is the
foremost example of the union between German militarism and
German heavy industry. What useful purpose is served by con-
demning these two and allowing their sponsors, men like Milch,
to go unpunished?

We take it as a fundamental proposition that man is not the
helpless product of his environment. Civilization is a lengthy
chronicle of men who triumphed over difficulty. Its survival de-
pends on the moral fibre of individuals who can use circum-
stance, not be determined by it. If society must answer for the
actions of men, and not men for the course of society, then, indeed,
governments are our masters and not our servants; then, indeed,
law dictates but does not express justice. Erhard Milch lived
during years of violence and in an evil environment but he was
a man well able to overcome these factors and become a force
for good. It was by his own free choice that he followed the line
of least resistance and became one of the evil spirits who cast
a dark shadow of war and crime over Germany and the world.
He had a choice between the easy wrong and the hard right —
he chose the former. Peace, order, and progress depend on men
of sufficient courage to choose at times a hard, just path. Ours
indeed is an exacting standard, but the rewards are great, and
the alternative is chaos.

376

B. Opening Statement for the Defense*

Dr. Bergold: May it please the Tribunal, I undertake now to
present the evidence for the defense. The prosecution has painted
the blackest possible picture of the man I am here to defend. It
has pronounced a moral judgment on him, even for the period of
his life, which, according to the indictment, is not to be judged by
this Tribunal.

Because of the great difference between the American and
the German people I have no knowledge of whether such a method
of prosecution is customary in the United States of America.
The good principles of law which were practiced in Germany
before 1933 provided that even counsel for the prosecution should
not reproach the defendant for anything that is not subject to
examination by the Tribunal. The meaning of this is that defense
counsel also should be in a position to express his views with
regard to these charges. This, according to my opinion, seems
to be a fair principle.

Therefore, if it please the Tribunal, it shall be my aim in the
course of my submission of evidence to prove by witnesses who
have been approved and by the defendant himself that the charges
made by the prosecution are incorrect, and I shall aim to prove
that also for the charges which are not contained in the indict-
ment.

Erhard Milch has never in his life been a traitor, as a person
or in his profession, not even at the end of the National Socialist
rule when he himself was threatened as to his life and his honor.
As a man of high intelligence and great talent for organization,
he always tried to do his best for his people and for the world.

To say of him that he misused his talent and devoted his life
to a plan for conquest and enslavement of the world is to have
a completely wrong conception of reality. He was never a mili-
tarist in the bad sense of the word. Never did he arm secretly
before 1933 nor make use of the peaceful instrument of the com-
mercial air fleet for any sinister purposes. He, the man who
wanted to devote himself only to the tasks of peace, the man
who in his capacity as director of the German Lufthansa col-
laborated with many European air transport companies and who
conceived this collaboration as almost a forerunner of a unified
Europe; he, the man who in 1937 devoted all his efforts, together
with a few wise and courageous statesmen, to the attempt to
bring about a full understanding and a large scale collaboration
between France, Belgium, and Germany (unfortunately, the high

* Opening statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript 27 January 1947. Tr. pp.
494-504.

377

Tribunal has not given me permission to furnish complete proof
for this fact) ; he, Erhard Milch, truly never tried to enslave
the world. If he had succeeded in his plans in 1937, then there
would have been no 1938. And, all the more, there would not
have been the horrible period of 1939 to 1945, the period in
which the battle against intolerance became so hard and so com-
plicated that we might think today that, as in an Arabian tale,
this spirit of intolerance freed itself from the bottle and spread
itself over so wide an area that, even today, it causes actions
which one day must also be condemned by the just and the
wise.

I shall prove that from the moment when this man tried, in
1937, to achieve his plans for peace he lost the confidence of his
superiors. He never belonged to the intimate circle in which his
superiors confided, even less so after 1937. They employed him
unwillingly and only because they believed that they could not
spare him because of his ability. It is cheap and easy to say now
that this man should have denied his superiors the benefit of his
talents. We shall prove that he tried to do so. But who can
dare to judge with certainty what went on in the heart of such
a man who was terribly aware of what dangers threatened his
people, once the fateful step of starting the war had been taken ?
Neither did he want this step nor could he prevent it.

Should he really have chosen the path of revolt, this man
who was brought up in a world in which, for all ages, military
obedience had been an inviolate law, this man who had a passion-
ate love for his people? How many human beings in any country
are capable of breaking the chains of their education, and turn
against the laws which have been inviolate for them ever since
their childhood?

There is no punishable guilt, perhaps even no moral guilt in
the fact that a man cannot free himself from the world of his
education. Because it is the very essence of all education to give
the man unbreakable laws and to create around him what philos-
ophers call “the environment proper to his own nature.” There-
fore, he has not made himself guilty by doing what his educa-
tion and the conceptions of his environment made him call his
duty, in a war which he did not want, which he tried to prevent;
and the stopping of which he advised again and again after it
had started. This duty, he felt, was to do his work and to prevent
the worst which he anticipated, namely, the terrible devastation
of his fatherland and its complete and helpless collapse.

I shall prove that he always, even after the war had broken
out, concerned himself with questions of defense only; that he
wanted to strengthen the fighter force, a defensive weapon with

378

which he wanted to prevent the doom of the German cities. Per-
haps, one day, the necessity for this doom will be judged dif-
ferently. I shall

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 - April, 1949"

See other formats